Re: Pine 3.93 CPYRIGHT
First let me say that I understand and appreciate whatever problems your
group may have had with RMS and FSF. (These are synonyms for the same
ideals as best I can tell) Here at Debian we have been going through our
own bumpy separation from the FSF. However, we remain committed to the
free software concept and believe that the changes in your copyright place
restrictions on future distributors that go beyond the spirit and letter
of this concept.
On Sat, 27 Apr 1996, Terry Gray wrote:
> Dale,
> Yes, there are lots of reasons to object to GPL... but that's a long and
> almost surely fruitless conversation. Suffice it to say we reject the
> definition of "free" used by FSF, indeed consider the GPL restrictions to
> be far more onerous than ours, and consider any decision to move Pine to
> a "non-free" status to be based on religion, not facts. Unless of course
> you are using the term "free" in a very narrow and convoluted sense...
>
We use a technical definition of the word with respect to free software.
This term is meant to imply freedoms for the end user and have nothing to
do with money or cost. This is the reason for the source availability
clause in most free software licenses.
The protection that you as the developers of the product receive from a
GPL like license is in the clause that requires the original copyright
notice to appear with any future distribution of that source code, no
matter how modified it may be. We read this to imply that a future
proprietary use of this code is permissible, but must recognize the
original developers rights as declared in the original copyright and if
that copyright requires source availability, the proprietary developer must
provide it.
Your copyright, on the other hand requires potential distributors of our
product to seek your permission for inclusion of your product on their
"for sale" CD. This restriction requires us to provide this package in the
non-free section of our distribution. Most upstream will simply leave it
off of their distribution if they intend to get paid for their efforts.
> In future releases we may include explicit permission for redistribution
> on CD-ROMs of free software, but I gather pragmatics are not the issue
> here.
If one can ever consider legal consideration to have anything to do with
pragmatics then we are certainly being pragmatic about this issue.
We do not require that the GPL be the only license we will allow! Not by
any stretch of the imagination. The BSD copyright, the ARTISTIC copyright,
a public domain copyright, or any hand crafted copyright that meets the
requirement of "freely distributable" (meaning I can also sell it without
asking permission)
I understand that, for some, the idea of "free distribution" and "payment
for distribution" create the feeling of self contradiction when used
together in the same context. But this is not a contradiction when you
realize where the freedom resides.
The right to free distribution, means that I can choose to sell or give
away the software at my free choice. The idea that the end user is also
free from dependence on the developer is what prompts the requirement of
source availability.
You, the primary developers of a product, loose none of the control, or
credit, of/for that product, when you provide such a free license.
The idea that this license would allow some future developer to take legal
action against your future development of your product is simply
unfounded.
We hope that you will reconsider and return to a more distribution
friendly copyright. Our main desire in this regard is to continue to give
your fine product the widest possible distribution.
This is, of course, a decision that only you can make.
Thank you for your time,
Dwarf
------------ --------------
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 877-0257
Flexible Software Fax: NONE
Black Creek Critters e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net
------------ If you don't see what you want, just ask --------------
Reply to: