On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 07:18:36AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> 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.
I find the FSF's four freedoms[1] essay pithier and more persuasive.
> Minor issues in the general case are issues which don't advance important
> issues [such as the above] as causes.
I personally would like to keep the presumptiveness about which types of
freedoms are important to our users to a minimum. ("You want to change
*what* to add a new feature?", we say. "Hmm, let's see: it doesn't have to
do with porting, maintenance, translation, legal distribution, or
interoperability. It also doesn't have to do with modularity, performance,
or consistent documentation. Sorry, your case isn't really important to
us, so we don't fine the copyright holder's requirement that you publish
your changes in the form of a Jumbotron advertisement in Times Square to be
excessively burdensome. Have a nice day!")
> > > 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.
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.
> > 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> > > > > 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.
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".
> > 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.
No, it doesn't. Since you're harping on this, let's review.
#!/usr/bin/perl
# BEGIN LICENSE BLOCK
#
# Copyright (c) 1996-2003 Jesse Vincent <jesse@bestpractical.com>
#
# (Except where explictly superceded by other copyright notices)
#
# This work is made available to you under the terms of Version 2 of
# the GNU General Public License. A copy of that license should have
# been provided with this software, but in any event can be snarfed
# from www.gnu.org.
#
# This work is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
# WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
# General Public License for more details.
#
# 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.
#
#
# END LICENSE BLOCK
I can't find any assertion of GPL compatibility in the above. The term
does not even appear. Isn't it a bit careless to put words in the
licensor's mouth?
That representatives of Best Practical LLC have *elsewhere* asserted that
intention upon being asked is highly reassuring, but it doesn't follow from
the license statement itself.
In any case, as we've seen with Hans Reiser's "anti-plaigiarism"
interpretation of section 2 of the GNU GPL, which appears to hold that
full-motion video advertisements akin to Mountain Dew commercials may not
removed without infringing his copyright, a licensor's interpretation of
"compatibility" may not reasonable in our view.
> > 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?
[1] http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
--
G. Branden Robinson | Somebody once asked me if I thought
Debian GNU/Linux | sex was dirty. I said, "It is if
branden@debian.org | you're doing it right."
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Woody Allen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature