[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: licensing of XMPP specifications

Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:00:02 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Francesco Poli wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:33:14 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
>>>> Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> writes:
> [...]
>>>> On the contrary, "software" is more sensibly contrasted with
>>>> "hardware", and covers any information in digital form ___ whether
>>>> that information happens to be interpreted as a program, an audio
>>>> stream, a text document, some other kind of digital data, or
>>>> several kinds at once.
>>> 100 % agreement here, I even wrote an essay on this subject.
>>> http://frx.netsons.org/essays/softfrdm/whatissoftware.html
>> Does a wire protocol count as "software"? How about documentation of
>> such a wire protocol?
> Documentation about a protocol is definitely software, in the broad
> meaning of the term.  A specification of the protocol is also software.

According to your broad definition. I'm not yet convinced that your
broad definition is correct. :)

>>> That would be the simplest and best solution.
>>> Especially if we take into account that license proliferation is bad
>>> and should be avoided whenever possible (hint: it is almost always
>>> possible!).
>> I agree, which is why I initiated deprecation of the Jabber Open
>> Source License:
>> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/jabberpl.php
>> http://mailman.jabber.org/pipermail/members/2005-August/003322.html
> That's really appreciated, indeed.
> What is not clear to me is: which license is the Jabber server released
> under?

Saying "the Jabber server" is like saying "the email server" or "the web
server". :)

> I mean: I know that there are several server implementations, 

Good, at least you know that much. :)

> but, IIUC,
> the Jabber Software Foundation implementation is called Jabberd 1.x.

No. The Jabber Software Foundation was renamed to the XMPP Standards
Foundation for several reasons, one of which being that we do NOT
produce software. All that we do is define protocols.

The jabberd 1.x codebase was the first server codebase, originally
created by the creator of Jabber technologies (Jeremie Miller). Long ago
that codebase was called "jabber" but it was changed to jabberd because
there are other codebases such as ejabberd (Erlang), djabberd (Perl),
Openfire (Java), and so on. And those are just the open/free source

> A comparative page on the official web site [1] states that it is
> released under the terms of the GPL license.
> But the Debian package [2] says that the Jabber Open Source License
> applies instead [3].

The jabberd 1.x codebase was once dual-licensed. As far as I'm aware, it
has been solely GPL-licensed since 1.4.x (not sure which sub-release)
and certainly 1.6.

> This discrepancy has already been pointed out in bug #302417.
> Could you help in solving that bug [4] ?

Sure, I'll contact the main jabberd 1.x developer.


Peter Saint-Andre

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply to: