Re: a Free Platform License?
On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 1:35 AM, "Osamu Aoki" <osamu@debian.org>
wrote:
> This definition of "Major Component" may include non-free binary blob in
> non-free kernel modules. For example, ethernel device driver, HDD RAID
> driver, 3D Video driver, ...
If the work requires a particular non-free system library or
driver or binary blob for its operation, then distribution
would be restricted. However, everything needed to build
convey binary distribution from preferred sources is free
and if the final work operates on an entirely free platform,
then the distribution criteria would be met.
> Are you sure if a user uses PC with non-free NVIDIA driver as a major
> component, you request this? If this is your intention ... Or you allow
> them as long as they use GNU/Linux.
For a free software license, how the user chooses to operate the
work, on what hardware and on what platform isn't a concern.
On Monday, November 28, 2011 4:11 PM, "Simon McVittie" <smcv@debian.org>
wrote:
> By being a copyleft license with more restrictions than the GPL,
> I believe your proposed license is non-GPL-compatible. This isn't
> necessarily a barrier to DFSG compliance, but it's a major practical
> problem.
Yes, I agree it's a practical problem. I also think your comments
are accurate. I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion, I need
a bit more time to digest your thoughtful analysis.
> Some interesting corner cases for you to think about:
>
> * If your software is ported to run on Wine, an LGPL implementation of
> the Windows API, is that a free platform? (How could it not be,
> given that its license is the same as glibc?) If it turns out the
> same binaries run correctly on a Windows machine, have you achieved
> anything by using this license, apart from annoying your users?
> * If your software is ported to run on GNUstep on Darwin, is that a free
> platform? If it turns out the same binaries run correctly on Mac OS X,
> have you achieved anything by using this license?
Yes. Quite a bit actually. We've ensured that any derived works
will build and operate on a free platform and won't require a
proprietary operating system for these purposes.
Even so, would this be practical? You couldn't just get away
with "packaging" the software in a emulated environment, you'd
have to ensure that it operates there as you expect; otherwise,
you'd be in violation. Imagine a bug report comes in for
a specific version of a platform due to a defect in the
system library. To develop an application-level work-around
for this bug, you'd first have to ensure that your emulation
environment also has this defect.
I guess to be absolutely clear about this, the license should
define the idea of "preferred platform" and require that this
platform be free software.
> * If I run your software in a FreeBSD or Linux virtual machine (e.g.
> VMWare or VirtualBox) on a Windows host, is that allowed? Why/why not?
> * A PC running your software has a non-free BIOS, and runs FreeBSD with
> binary-only drivers (nVidia!). Is that allowed? Why/why not?
> What if the binary-only drivers are needed to boot (network card
> firmware)?
How a user wishes to use a copy of the work in the privacy of
their own organization is not the subject of the license.
I think the virtual hardware emulation layer may be a great
way to think about it. Perhaps the best "test" for compliance
of a distribution is if you can build and deploy the work in
an emulated environment (say KVM) running only free software.
(out-of-sequence)
> I don't think whether your license is DFSG-compliant is the
> important issue here;
I do. If Debian, on general principle is opposed to any
license that would discriminate based upon platform, then
this determination effectively eliminates further discussion.
So far in this thread, there have been several comments
that lead me to believe that even if this license may be
considered free software, it would not be DFSG compliant.
On November 24, "David Prévot" <taffit@debian.org> wrote:
> If you're looking for a license that "discriminate against
> [a] group of persons" [DGSG5], such as proprietary platforms
> users, that's not going happen in Debian.
On November 26, "Ben Finney" <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> "Discriminate against proprietary platforms" seems to
> necessarily entail discriminating against a field of use
> for the work, which violates an essential freedom for the
> recipient of the work.
On November 26, "Hugo Roy" <hugo@fsfe.org> wrote:
> > This license should prevent distributions which
> > specifically target a proprietary platform.
>
> No, you don't want to prevent distributions, that would
> be like taking away the freedom to distribute copies to
> specific people. That would not be free.
I think the origin for this line thinking resides with
DFSG/OSI non-discrimination clauses and has very little
do to with RMS's definition of free software.
For example, let's consider a case to which the GPL
license is found to discriminate against an up-coming
field of endeavor, Underwater Basket Weaving, and
against a group of people, the inhabitants of the
watery planet, Atlantis.
1. Lisa is a Free Software developer who releases
her data visualization toolkit, Super Visual,
under the GPL license.
2. John is a Proprietary developer from the planet
Atlantis who publishes a closed source, but
*freely redistributable* data processing library
for Underwater Basket Weaving.
3. Zeek is an Atlantian, weaver & software programmer
who creates a novel program he calls Deepwater
Basket, tightly integrating Lisa's GPL data
visualization tool with Jon's non-free, but
freely-distributable processing library that
everyone, I mean everyone uses. Zeek wants to
share like Lisa, so he puts his work under the GPL.
4. Samantha is also a basket weaver, a very important
activity on the planet Atlantis, and she really
wants to refine her underwater techniques and
hence is very interested in obtaining a copy of
Zeek's Deepwater Basket.
In this case, GPL would prevent Zeek from sharing
his program to Samantha since he is unable to meet
the GPL's conditions for distribution. Specifically,
he cannot provide the same rights that he obtained
from Lisa to Samantha since John absolutely refuses
to release his work under a free software license.
The problem here is that to other basketweavers,
John's work is near mystical. There are some
weak "open source" options, but none of them are
as well known or prolific. Hence, we have to
conclude that by preventing distribution of this
Deepwater Basket software, the GPL license is
a non-free license in disguise that viciously
discriminates against a field of endeavor,
Underwater Basket Weaving, and especially those
unfortunate souls on the planet Atlantis.
Best,
Clark
Reply to: