Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:00:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > # Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or
> > # extensions to this work which alter its source code become the
> > # property of Best Practical Solutions, LLC when submitted for
> > # inclusion in the work.
> It is not just GPL-incompatible, it is non-free.
>
> Your modifications, corrections, or extensions have value. Best
> Practical Solutions, LLC, is asserting ownership in something you have
> created.
No, it's not. It's only saying that *if* you submit them for inclusion in
the work.
Nothing is forcing you to do that.
> This is no different from charging you money in exchange for the right
> to exercise your freedoms under the license.
>
> 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.
I think it's different. Their intention is obvious -- to cover their arses
against the possibility that someone submits a patch and then sues for a
portion of their profits. If you don't want to pass ownership of your patch
to them, don't send it in. This is merely an attempt to reduce the hassle
of accepting patches.
It seems reasonable to me.
> It would not, however, surprise me if people voting in favor of proposal
> D in the current General Resolution[1], didn't find a DFSG-violation
> here. Many of them don't seem to be able find a DFSG violation in
> anything at all, because only those who are '"Holier Than Stallman",
> i.e., the fringe fanatics.' really care about freedom.
Now now, that's unnecessarily provocative, and makes it harder to have
a constructive discussion without flamewars ensuing. I know you can't help
it, besides which I have a thick skin, but please do try to restrain
yourself ;-)
> IMO the author of request-tracker3 needs to be contacted ASAP and their
> intentions confirmed. It is possible this clause was inserted into the
> license without its ramifications being properly considered --
> particularly given that it is GPL-incompatible and RT is deeply
> commingled with many Perl modules licensed under the GNU GPL.
Whatever I think about the reasonableness of the condition and its DFSG-
freeness, you may have a point here.
Cheers,
Nick
Reply to: