Re: PHP-Nuke: A calling for votes
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 email@example.com wrote:
> First of all: phpnuke package _is going to non-free_. I will make a new
> dupload in a day or two.
> Richard Braakman wrotes:
> > 1. The GPL is DFSG-free by definition
> > 2. The author is interpreting GPL 2(c) in a legally valid way
> > 3. Therefore, the condition is also DFSG-free
I disagree with #1 and #2. And, in fact, I belive that the PHPNuke
author's interpretation of GPL 2c is so bizarre that it's not actually
GPL-licensed software anymore.
No license is free-by-definition. The GPL is free by application, in that
packages which follow the most common interpretation of the GPL are free.
> That's my point of view. We have judge Mr.F.Burzi and found him guilty.
No, we've judged PHPNuke in light of Mr. Burzi's statements about his
interpretation of the GPL. Mr. Burzi is guilty of nothing.
> We have decided this way due to our moral
> conception of free software. We already have found a bug on GPL, as
> Richard pointed before.
We have? Many of us don't like 2c, but I haven't seen anyone claim that
the common interpretation is unfree.
> So we need a new version of GPL (at least
> something positive coming out from this flame).
The FSF is working on just this.
> But in the meantime phpnuke should have the right to stay in main, as it
> it technically GLP compilant, we liked or not.
No, in the meantime PHPNuke should be moved to non-free, as it is not
free based on the author's statements of interpretation. I'd further
claim that it's not GPL-compatible, as there are many pieces of GPL
software that it cannot be combined with and maintain the "page footer"
Mark Rafn firstname.lastname@example.org <http://www.dagon.net/>