Re: Debian FreeBSD
On 19 Nov 1999, John Goerzen wrote:
> Dale,
>
> Suffice it to say that your message makes me both extremely angry and
> extremely sad. I am trying to be as civil as pssible in my response.
>
> Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:
>
> > The BSD License is _specificly_ called out in "10. Example Licenses" of
> > the DFSG as a compliant license. You are suggesting that SPI _not_ support
> > a DFSG compliant product?
>
> You are demonstrating a lack of understanding of the purpose and
> reasons for creation of the DFSG. The DFSG was designed to identify
I doubt that very much, as I was part of the discussion that created the
DFSG. The "purpose" of the DFSG was and is to declare just what Debian
considers "Free Software".
I am constantly surprised at the confusion around this document. It is
very clear, and very precise about what is, and what is not, free by
Debian standards. The BSD License is clearly free by every standard of
the DFSG.
> which non-GPL licenses were sufficiently free to allow us to
> distribute software under them in main. It is NOT an endorsement of
> any particular such license, nor does it mean that we must support
> them, nor does it mean that we think they're good.
It _does_ mean that we consider them Free!
>
> > The author and copyright holder of the software can freely release one
> > version of the code under the GPL and another under a completely closed
> > license. Neither one effects the other, but by your logic I could not
> > support this author's efforts, as they "will" become proprietary.
>
> Here is where your greatest flaw comes in. It saddens me to think how
> much Debian's moral and ethical center has slipped since I first used
> the system several years back. Our entire Free Software movement is
> centered around the idea that software should not have owners and that
> it should never be proprietary. Here you, a Debian developer, are
No, it is centered around the protection of our Freedom to use and
develop such material in an open environement. Both the GPL and the BSD
licenses protect what we consider "essential" freedoms. The right to keep
our work out of the hands of "proprietary" vendors is _not_ a necessary,
or essential freedom under the DFSG, as long as those freedoms we _do_
consider essential are still provided.
> stating that not only is it OK for an author to release proprietary
> software, but furthermore that I should not criticize such. This goes
> against everything Debian stands for, and goes against our Social
> Contract.
If you wish to ignore the fact that what I suggested is completely valid
and proper under the copyright laws, you are free to do so. The social
contract makes no attempt to change these laws, as it has no power to do
so. Even RMS agrees that releasing a piece of software under a proprietary
license is the _right_ of the author, and can not be taken away by the use
of a more free license like the GPL.
It isn't a matter of whether or not we support such actions. They are
completely legal, and correct actions.
>
> > The same is true of the BSD license, except that it is more honest, and
> > provides the same rights to the end user that the author has, that is the
> > right to release modified work under a different license. The "parent"
> > free version does not vanish under those circumstances, and continues to
> > provide a "free" development path.
>
> My right to do anything I want to with my hand (as most would say I
> have a right to) ends the moment my clenched fist impacts your nose.
Giving the right to license changes to the end-user, is not the same thing
as the "right to do anything". It is a very specific assignment of one of
the author's rights, under copyright law, to the end user of the licensed
material, just like the right to modify source in the GPL. All free
licenses pass on some specific right, given to the author by the copyright
law, to the end user. You would wish to say that BSD is "evil" because it
gives proprietary users as well as non-proprietary users, equal freedom in
the use of the licensed material. I just don't see it that way.
> That is, it ends when it takes away your right to live without being
> punched in the face. Perhaps you would rather say that my right to do
> whatever I want with my arm is absolute; perhaps your attitude would
> change if I am allowed to punch you in the face.
In order to punch me in the face, you are going to have to violate a bunch
of other social restrictions. As well as spend some money on plane fares
etc just to get within reach of my face, you will have to come onto my
property (trespass), break down my door (B&E), and stumble across the mess
in the living room, giving me a chance to protect myself with the
"Webster's LARGE PRINT Dictionary" (Weighs about 3 pounds...).
So come and get it Dude ;-)
BTW, you are confusing "rights" with "capability". Yes, you have the
control over the power in your arm, and yes, you can use that power to
deliver momentum to my face, using your arm. None of that power and
capability give you any "rights" to re-arrange my features. I have the
perfect right (on the other hand) to take the baseball bat from behind the
office door, and use it to break every bone in your hand, were you to
"attack" me in the fashion you describe.
>
> Your right to do whatever you want with software ends when it takes
> away my right to do the same as you have. This is the primary and
> fatal flaw of the BSD license.
What you see as a flaw, I see as an additional freedom. I say that the BSD
license provides additional freedom to the user, yes, even the proprietary
one. The fact that the code still remains free doesn't seem sufficient for
you. This implies that your logic is based on the idea that you are
opposed to having someone use "your" code in a proprietary fashion. This
seems as Ownership centric as any argument I've ever heard, so obviously I
don't understand your objection to this license.
While I agree that you have the right to think whatever you wish about the
BSD License (I personally don't like some of the freedoms that are
restricted by the GPL, but I still support it as a free license), I do not
agree that you have the right to "re-interpret" the DFSG to exclude a
license that it explicitly calls out as "Free".
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Reply to: