Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness
Here's a recap of one point in subthread:
Branden:
> > > > > > > > This clause violates the intent of DFSG 1, in my
> > > > > > > > opinion. "The license may not require a royalty
> > > > > > > > or other fee for such sale." It does not seem
> > > > > > > > reasonable to me to assume that the license *may*
> > > > > > > > require royalty or other fees for other activities,
> > > > > > > > apart from sale, normally protected by copyright
> > > > > > > > but which are part and parcel of software freedom.
Raul:
> > > > > > > You should provide a more significant objection than
> > > > > > > "your modifications have value".
Branden:
> > > > > > I don't think it's an "insigificant" objection.
Raul:
> > > > > The license prohibits any redistribution at all, and
> > > > > instead of focussing on that,
Branden:
> > > > Why shouldn't we present license analyses that are as
> > > > comprehensive as we can make them? 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."
Raul:
> > > > 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".
Branden:
> > > Which licenses do we accept as DFSG-free even though they have "this
> > > problem"?
Raul:
> > That's for you to say.
Branden:
> No; it is you who has asserting that 'we accept licenses as DFSG[-free]
> even though they have "this problem"'. The burden of proof is on the
> affirmative.
Ok if you want to focus on that aspect, I've included enough material
in this thread to show you what you originally said, and the way you
said it.
You later presented your point of view in a much more coherent form.
I agree with that presentation. For reference, it's:
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.
That doesn't mean that I agree with the original statement of your
argument.
I'm not going to respond to the rest of your message in this fashion,
because I don't have the time or interest to show you the context of
what you're saying and how what you're saying does or doesn't relate to
that context. I will include a few quips though:
> > > 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.
> That says the GNU GPL itself is an example of a DFSG-free license. It
> doesn't say anything about licenses that aren't the GNU GPL being
> compatible with the terms of the GNU GPL.
> I reiterate: DFSG-freeness is not predicated on GPL-compatibility.
It is in the context of GPL licensed programs.
> > Note also that in this case we're talking about a license which
> > represents itself as GPL compatible.
>
> No, it does not "represent itself as GPL compatible". It represents itself
> as being the GNU GPL version 2, with a rider tacked onto it.
That's not a meaningful distinction.
> We've long known that tacking riders onto the GNU GPL that aren't in the
> form of grants of additional permissions are problematic. Let me know if
> you need me to trawl the archives of this list to support this statement,
> but for the moment I'm going to assume it's common knowledge.
This was not a grant of additional permission.
> I do not see how your statement supports your assertion that I am "pushing
> a line of logic that seems to make the GPL non-free".
It's probably true that you don't see this.
> > Agreed. And the Best Practical license declares itself GPL compatible.
>
> No, it doesn't. Since you're harping on this, let's review.
...
> # This work is made available to you under the terms of Version 2 of
> # the GNU General Public License.
...
> I can't find any assertion of GPL compatibility in the above.
Ok.
> The term does not even appear. Isn't it a bit careless to put words in the
> licensor's mouth?
You seem to be confusing spelling with meaning.
> > > If I haven't expressed myself clearly, then it's quite likely you don't
> > > understand me, no?
> >
> > Exactly.
>
> Would you respond to the remainder of my message, please?
What value would this have for debian-legal?
More specifically, which points do you consider important? I'll be happy
to focus on specific issues, but I don't want to robotically respond to
every single sentence you've written.
--
Raul
Reply to: