Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness
> > The license prohibits any redistribution at all, and instead of focussing
> > on that,
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:37:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Why shouldn't we present license analyses that are as comprehensive as we
> can make them?
Because potential complexity of the boundaries is infinite.
Also, hammering minor point after minor point while missing the main
point is argumentative and of little value.
> Do you think it's a good idea to get involved in a series
> of cycles with people? "Thanks for fixing that. Here's the next problem.
> Thanks for fixing that. Here's the next problem. Thanks for fixing that.
> Here's the next problem. Thanks for fixing that. Here's the next
> problem."
It's ok to say: here's the big problem, and here's some other areas of
concern that you might want to think about.
It's misleading to say "this is a problem" when we accept licenses as
DFSG even though they have "this problem".
> I see no reason not to be fully candid, and air all of our concerns with a
> given license at once. Does it do anyone any good if they budge on one
> non-DFSG-compliant point but leave another one in the license because
> "that's going too far"? Wouldn't our investment of time be better spent
> working with other licensors who are willing to use DFSG-free licenses?
In this case, we're talking about a license which is intended to be
GPL compatible. Given that the GPL already satisfies the DFSG, all
we need to do for these folks is point out the areas where they're not
GPL compatible.
We might want to add a note -- that if they give up on the GPL
compatability issue that might raise other issues. But I wouldn't go
any farther than that.
> > you are pushing a line of logic that seems to make the GPL
> > non-free.
>
> Eh? What's with this scare-mongering, slippery-slope argument?
It's the literal truth. You've advanced a claim that "if the license
requires something of value, the license cannot satisfy the DFSG". And,
the GPL requires something of value.
> You either do not understand my objection (this calling into your question
> your dismissal of it as "insignificant"), or you are deliberately
> misrepresenting it.
I prefer to think that you've expressed your concept unclearly.
By the way, my objection was to what you said, not to what you thought.
> > > > "Distribution of source", as required by the GPL, has value, so your
> > > > logic would this mean that the GPL is non-free.
> > >
> > > No, because modification is not distribution, and I cannot copyright my act
> > > of distribution[1].
> >
> > You can't copyright gold, either.
>
> I would agree that it is important that licensors not reach for more than
> they can grasp when drafting their licenses.
>
> (If that's not what you're trying to say, perhaps you could eludicate.)
You seemed to be claiming that distribution has no value because
distribution can't be copyrighted. [But gold can't be copyrighted either,
and gold has value. [I'm bringing up this "value" issue in the first
place, because you claimed that requiring something of value conflicts
with the DFSG -- I choose an example involving the GPL because that
seemed the simplest way to point out that you had not expressed a clear
violation of the DFSG.]]
Regardless of what you meant by "No, because modification is not
distribution, and I cannot copyright my act of distribution", perhaps
we could get back to what I see as the key questions:
[1] What DFSG conflicts are you talking about?
[2] Does your DFSG interpretation allow us to distribute GPL'd software?
--
Raul
Reply to: