Re: orphaning fetchmail
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 07:19:19PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > Well, it seems that OpenSSL's major crime here is that is isn't under the
> > One True License.
>
> Crime? You're the only one suggesting crime.
Then why the rewrite if >I< am the one suggesting crime. I'm perfectly
happy with the status quo.
> > So, yes, by your definition, there is only one way to do it, and
> > OpenSSL isn't doing it that way.
>
> Which sounds easier: rewriting open ssl, or rewriting all GPLed programs
> which use sockets to communicate with other systems?
Rewriting the damned GPL to be compatible with the rest of the world might
be a good place to start rewriting.
> OpenSSL is doing something approximately in that direction, but I don't
> see that it solves all the problems.
Where's the technical issue? The only problem that's been postulated is
the license combatibility.
> > Would your proposed rewrite add any functionality or at least do
> > things differently?
>
> Differently from what? From the current implementation suitable for
> those applications?
Diffferently from the status quo. You want people to commit to rewriting
a program, but there's no real benefit to rewriting it: there's already a
program out there that does exactly what you want, and it's DFSG free.
> Non-GPL authors are perfectly free to reimplement GPLed works, if
> they don't like the GPL license. Why shouldn't GPL authors be free to
> reimplement non-GPL works if they don't like the non-GPL license?
Are they? Show me one successful case.
> > Would it even have more difference than the legal minimum to make it a
> > separate work?
>
> If it's an independent rewrite, perhaps to a different underlying api,
> then it would pretty much have to be an independent work.
Aha! If the API is screwed, that isn't just a political issue now is it?
> > Would EAY recognize it as a different way to do it?
>
> Copyright isn't about functionality. It's about literal copying.
...which you have every right to do ATM, just so long as you don't
plagiarize. My question still stands: if the programs are so similar that
the author can't tell the difference, how technically oriented was the
change?
> > This just sounds like an Orwellian redefinition of the BSDL, not a
> > different way to do things.
>
> I suppose you could describe the openssl license as an orwellian
> redefinition... [To address the comment I think you were trying to
> express, but did not: I don't see how you could describe someone else's
> independent authoring of code as orwellian redefinition of the BSDL,
If it were truly independent, no. But what you're proposing isn't
independent is it? The dependency lies in WHY the program was
authored. If it were authored because the new author has a better way to
do it, then we have the issue of the original author having the beholden
right to do whatever they want with their code. If it was rewritten just
because the author disagreed with the licensing terms, and the terms are
DFSG free, it isn't Debian's place to encourage it--making free variants
of non-free programs is well within the SC, making free variants of
already free programs is something that Debian should accept if as a _fait
accompli_ but not go out of its way to start.
> unless they actually use a variant of the BSD license.]
>
>
--
Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a
damn.
email galt@inconnu.isu.edu
Reply to: