On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 07:40:39PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > > 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. That's true of most real-world decision problems. > Also, hammering minor point after minor point while missing the main > point is argumentative and of little value. I see; what sort of DFSG violations do you consider "minor"? > 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"? Please be careful about putting words in my mouth. > 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. I don't think we should be anymore GPL-partisan than we have to be. 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. > > > 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". 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. 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. > > 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? > By the way, my objection was to what you said, not to what you thought. I am not sure how this statement adds information to this discussion. > > > > > "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. You're quite incorrect as regards my claims. I take it as a given that distribution has "value", because engaging in it is a practice that copyright law regulates. Does it make sense to obtain a license for something that is valueless? Free copyright licenses grant license to distribute. That they do so doesn't not mean that can *compel* distribution arbitrarily, however. Would we accept as DFSG-free a sort of chain-letter license which compelled the licensee, immediately upon obtaining a copy of the work, to distribute further copies to twenty different acquantainces of his? > [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.]] I stated it this way because restricting it to property and things like copyrights, patents, and trademarks is not sufficient. Would we accept as DFSG-free a license which claimed the right of jus primae noctis[1] for the copyright holder with respect to the relatives of the licensee? > 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? I believe the clause in question violates DFSG 1. > [2] Does your DFSG interpretation allow us to distribute GPL'd software? Yes. [1] http://90.1911encyclopedia.org/J/JU/JUS_PRIMAE_NOCTIS.htm -- G. Branden Robinson | There's nothing an agnostic can't Debian GNU/Linux | do if he doesn't know whether he branden@debian.org | believes in it or not. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Graham Chapman
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature