Re: PBS License
On 17 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> The license doesn't say ADDITIONAL restriction, it simply says
>> restrictions. Adding words that are not there to make it free is not only
>> dishonest, it's stupid.
>You are patently attempting to misread the license. But it can't hurt
>to just ask the authors.
Yes, I am trying to misread the license. Worse yet, I'm succeeding.
Clause 5 is capable of being construed in a manner that denies the right
of modification. This, coupled with the choice of law clause placing it
in a UCTIA state, makes it unsuitable for main. BTW, the authors have
already spoken, and the license is what they said. There is no further
need for their input. To be precise, their input is actually detrimental:
they might explain away a flaw and then engage in a "stealth" attack.
Remember UW and Pine?
>> Arguing that a license is vague enough to be non-free is impeding?
>No, but raising specious arguments is impeding.
Again, when are you going to stop impeding?
>> Then you've been impeding Debian ever since you subscribed to this
>> list (I believe the first argument you and I had on this list was
>> you taking the position that the Artistic license was too vague to
>> be DFSG free), and you haven't stopped yet.
>I think you're incorrect. In any case, the Artistic license isn't the
>point here; the issue is the PBS license. It would be impeding work
No, it's not the point, the point is that you're engaging in behaviors you
call in others impeding. The self same behavior you used in the
case of the DFSG-free-by-definition Artistic license is now the behavior
you damn in my use in the case of the questionably-DFSG-free PBS. They
have a word for that kind of personality trait: hypocrisy.
>to start asking whether the X license is really free, or the GPL.
>It's not even impeding work to ask if the PBS license is free. But it
>is impeding work to raise specious claims about the X license.
I think you need to learn a new word: CONTEXT. The fact is that ALL
licenses are restrictive in some form or another, otherwise there wouldn't
be a need for them. Pointing out the restriction in the X license was
done at the behest of Edmund, and it's only germane to this discussion in
the fact that you couldn't even license your changes to OpenPBS under it,
arguably one of the LEAST restrictive licenses in existence. My point
still stands that the only way to make changes IAW clause 5 is to release
them PD, as ANY license contains "restrictions". Please do us all a favor
and open up a nice tall can of Shut The Hell Up and drink it all up.
The early worm gets the bird.
Who is John Galt? email@example.com, that's who!