On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 12:36:22AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> Just as I was about to write a note to this list regretfully noting that
> after a long grace period UW still hadn't come up a license that met the
> DFSG so my new upload would be going into non-free, I looked at my mail
> and saw an announcement that imap 2000 had been officially released
> yesterday. Under an "open source" license! So here is the UW Free-Fork
> license. Thumbs up or thumbs down? (I plan to fulfill clause 2 by
> changing the version number to 2000debian.)
No offense to you (this license isn't your fault) but:
This license is bullshit.
> (1) modified versions are distributed with source code and
> documentation and with permission for others to use any code and
> documentation (whether in original or modified versions) as granted
> under this license;
Acceptable.
> (2) if modified, the source code, documentation, and user run-time
> elements should be clearly labeled by placing an identifier of origin
> (such as a name, initial, or other tag) after the version number;
Acceptable.
> (3) users, modifiers, distributors, and others coming into possession
> or using the Distribution in original or modified form accept the
> entire risk as to the possession, use, and performance of the
> Distribution;
Acceptable.
> (4) this copyright management information (software identifier and
> version number, copyright notice and license) shall be retained in all
> versions of the Distribution;
Acceptable.
> (5) the University of Washington may make modifications to the
> Distribution that are substantially similar to modified versions of
> the Distribution, and may make, use, sell, copy, distribute, publicly
> display, and perform such modifications, including making such
> modifications available under this or other licenses, without
> obligation or restriction;
BZZT! WRONG! This says that they may steal your changes and take them
proprietary ("other licenses, without...restriction"), even if they are
novel enough to be independently copyrightable.
This clause attempts to enforce assignment of copyright without actually
saying so. Even the Free Software Foundation, much maligned by BSD bigots,
does not require assignment of copyright within the license terms of GPL'ed
software. (They just want an assignment to make your program "official
GNU software", which is up to you.)
Again, DANGER WILL ROBINSON! What happens if someone hacks some GPL'ed
code into IMAP? UWash suddenly claims ownership of that code (technically,
they claim to have the right to possession of something "substantially
similar" to that code, with no restrictions on what they can do with it,
including not release the source code so you can't tell if they
reimplemented said GPL'ed code, or just stole it and are attempting to
conceal the evidence).
Wrong wrong wrong. You are not allowed to modify Uwash's IMAP to suit your
own purposes; all of a sudden anything "substantially similar" (i.e., the
same as) your changes belong to UWash lock, stock, and barrel. This is a
tremendously hostile gesture on the part of UWash and should be rejected.
As an aside, this clause renders the license GPL-incompatible (because it
makes "additional restrictions" on the licensee). That alone doesn't make
it DFSG-nonfree, but it does make it a bitch to work with. Apparently
UWash has chosen not to learn from the lesson, years in the making, that
TrollTech just made, which is that it doesn't matter what your license is
as long as it looks vaguely free (or utters the right kind of jargon),
people will try to blend GPL'ed code with it. That may not be your fault,
but it leads to heaps of trouble.
> (6) modifications incorporating code, libraries, and/or documentation
> subject to any other open source license may be made, and the
> resulting work may be distributed under the terms of such open source
> license if required by that open source license, but doing so will not
> affect this Distribution, other modifications made under this license
> or modifications made under other University of Washington licensing
> arrangements;
This is meaningless for anything GPL'ed or LGPL'ed since this code is
already in conflict with those licenses (see clause 5 above); the only
"Open Source" licenses liberal enough to meet these criteria are the BSD
and MIT licenses, under which you can already take the code proprietary
anyway.
This clause is a smokescreen, an attempt to conceal the hostile,
assimilative efforts of clause 5.
> (7) no permission is granted to distribute, publicly display, or
> publicly perform modifications to the Distribution made using
> proprietary materials that cannot be released in source format under
> conditions of this license;
What's this onanistic obsession with "public performance" of modifications
to software? Sounds to me like UWash wants me to able to use, say, the
DMCA to sue Copyleft if they print a T-shirt (which could be consider a
"proprietary material" since a free software might object if you steal the
shirt off his back as opposed to downloading some code from his webpage)
mocking UWash with a modification to the source like:
printf("UWash are a bunch of spineless shills for Microsoft seeking to impose UCITA on us all.\n");
> (8) the name of the University of Washington may not be used in
> advertising or publicity pertaining to Distribution of the software
> without specific, prior written permission.
Acceptable.
> This software is made available "as is", and
>
> THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
> IMPLIED, WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION
> ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
> PURPOSE, AND IN NO EVENT SHALL THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BE LIABLE
> FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
> WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
> ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE) OR STRICT LIABILITY,
> ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS
> SOFTWARE.
Acceptable.
Given the terms of this license, a sane person would choose something close
to the LGPL. Maybe even the regular GPL. But this license, as written, is
evidence of ignorance, insanity, or malice. Given the amount of effort
UWash appears to have spent on lawyers to draft this thing, I have to
assume the latter.
I urge the Debian community to reject this license; it looks to me like it
might fail DFSG #9.
--
G. Branden Robinson | What influenced me to atheism was
Debian GNU/Linux | reading the Bible cover to cover.
branden@debian.org | Twice.
http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- J. Michael Straczynski
Attachment:
pgp0FgdQvetWd.pgp
Description: PGP signature