Re: Open Software License v2.1
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 08:12:25PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Lawsuits are not intrinsically bad for free software.
> >
> > Software patent lawsuits attempting to prevent the use and distribution
> > of free software certainly is intrinsically bad for free software.
>
> But the problem is that that software isn't free to begin with -- it
> could be, if the patent owner issued a free license, but it isn't
> without the court case either. Somebody else owns the monopoly on
> that invention.
But, as we all know, this is the case with all software, due to the vast
numbers of software patents. If we take the mere existance of a patent to
mean that the software isn't free, then there is probably no free software.
> >> It is unarguably superior that source should always be available for a
> >> free software project. You cannot say the same for prohibiting
> >> lawsuits.
> >
> > It is not unarguably the case that source requirements are always
> > beneficial to free software. I could easily give an example where
> > they were detrimental, and the development of a free software project
> > was furthered by dropping them. (I'm not interested in debating whether
> > this was actually so or not; it was, and I'll leave it at that for the
> > sake of avoiding pointless tangents.)
>
> You're claiming an existence proof but failing to show the example. I
> don't believe you -- nothing personal, but how can that be allowed as
> a successful argument? I suspect you're looking at a case where you
> *bought* effort towards a software project by permitting
> source-disclosure requirements to be cancelled.
I didn't provide the example because I believed the fact that they exist
is self-evident, and providing unnecessary detail is something I was hoping
to not spend my (finite) time on.
I'm a programmer for StepMania[1], and for In The Groove[2], a commercial
project based on it. Source requirements would have rendered the ITG project
unfeasible, for various, typical marketplace reasons. If the ITG project
didn't exist, I wouldn't be working on StepMania very much today[3]; the
fact that my ITG work and SM work overlap is what allows it. (Almost all
of my work for ITG is merged into SM.)
In this case, the GPL's requirements placed on StepMania would have had
a negative impact on its development. The switch to the X11 license has
had no discernable negative impact at all (other than the time required
to confirm the switch). StepMania's source is still available[4], and it's
receiving much more development than it would have had the switch not
been made. This is simply a case of proprietary development that is
compatible with, and beneficial to, free software development.
Of course, this is an exceptional case: in the far majority of cases,
source distribution requirements both benefit the work and have no major
detrimental effects. That's why people use them, and why they're not
considered to violate DFSG#5/#6. I'm simply showing that exceptions
exist.
(Going back to the original quotes, I suppose that "source should always
be available" and "requiring that source always be available" aren't
really the same thing--with X11-licensed software, source is available;
it's just not required to be. I do agree that source being available is
always beneficial to free software. I just don't believe that *requiring*
it is always beneficial, as in this case, because in some cases it prevents
things which are, for the specific case, even more beneficial. In context,
I think Andrew did mean "requiring".)
[1] http://www.stepmania.com
[2] http://www.roxorgames.com/itg/index.html
[3] http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=11516
[4] In fact, StepMania's source must remain available, since it uses
MAD for MP3 decoding. (ITG doesn't use MAD or MP3.)
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: