Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness
> > Also, hammering minor point after minor point while missing the main
> > point is argumentative and of little value.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:49:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I see; what sort of DFSG violations do you consider "minor"?
Minor is relative, and depends on context.
In the context of GPL compatability [which I think the current context
is], "minor" means "things which would automatically be dealt with
if the GPL incompatability issues were resolved".
More generally, I think the most important issues for us are:
[*] porting (to other platforms)
[*] maintenance (especially security fixes, but not only)
[*] translation (to other human languages)
[*] legal distribution (especially for our mirror operators, b...)
[*] interoperability (especially compliance with important standards)
Secondary issues [these fall under "maintenance"] include:
[*] modularity (providing good machine interfaces)
[*] performance (not doing unnecessary things)
[*] consistent documentation (lots of bugs fall in this category)
These are incomplete lists.
Minor issues in the general case are issues which don't advance important
issues [such as the above] as causes.
> > 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".
>
> Which licenses do we accept as DFSG-free even though they have "this
> problem"?
That's for you to say.
> Please be careful about putting words in my mouth.
Ok.
> The GNU GPL is often a good choice for a license, but we are not an organ of
> the Free Software Foundation, and DFSG-freeness is not predicated on
> GPL-compatibility.
>
> At least, not as the DFSG is currently written. You could propose that
> GPL-compatibility be a DFSG criterion. It might pass.
I'm satisfied with DFSG#10, thanks.
Note also that in this case we're talking about a license which represents
itself as GPL compatible.
> > > > 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 have elided "in exchange for rights under the license".
That's implicitly true of any license clause. Sometimes this is stated
explicitly, for clarity, but if you violate a license clause you open
yourself for legal action on the basis that you're not following the
license.
> One you undertake actions regulated by copyright law, something that would
> otherwise be yours becomes the property of Best Practical LLC.
>
> This is not a characteristic of the GNU GPL.
Agreed. And the Best Practical license declares itself GPL compatible.
> The GNU GPL *does* require that you transmit something of value -- or an
> offer to do so -- alongside *other* things of value when you distribute
> them to another party. Best Practical's license has an invisible hand that
> reaches into your life from afar and asserts property claims over something
> that would otherwise be yours.
>
> This, to me is an essential and important distinction. Perhaps you don't
> agree.
I like this expression of the concept.
> > > 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.
>
> If I haven't expressed myself clearly, then it's quite likely you don't
> understand me, no?
Exactly.
--
Raul
Reply to: