Re: webmin license
Henning Makholm writes:
> Marc van Leeuwen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > But this is not just an exercise for the lawyers; it means for
> > instance that Debian should immediately stop distributing "remind",
> > even in non-free, since they obviously lack the right to do that!
> That reasoning is plain wrong. OBVIOUSLY the author want to permit
> e.g. Debian to distribute the program. And what the author wants and
> clealy states is the ONLY thing that matters when it comes to
> It does NOT matter what another random license that does not apply to
> the program says.
The KDE/GPL issue provides an instructive precedent for refusing to
distribute something because of a contradictory license even when the
authors of the program "obviously ... want to permit e.g. Debian to
distribute the program". In that case, free software distributors
declined to distribute something even though the authors wanted it to
be distributed, because the license terms were still found to be
If you want to ridicule this phenomenon, you could compare it to an
autoimmune disease, where the natural processes that protect us against
bad things also have some unintended consequences and may result in an
outcome you would not approve of. Then you could say that the free
software movement's very strict construction of the GPL is something
like an autoimmune disease (which fits interestingly with the "virus"
Unfortunately, the KDE/GPL issue also caused interminable flames and
acrimony, and it is perhaps better not to bring it up again, except to
indicate that there is a (very controversial) precedent.
Seth David Schoen <email@example.com> | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5