Re: Social Contract
On 4/27/06, Mike McCarty <Mike.McCarty@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I'll quote a short piece from the page [Johannes Wiedersich] put below, which goals
> I do not support...
>
> [QUOTE MODE ON]
>
> The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG)
>
> 1. Free Redistribution
>
> The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
> selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
> software distribution containing programs from several different
> sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
>
> 2. Source Code
>
> The program must include source code, and must allow distribution
> in source code as well as compiled form.
>
> 3. Derived Works
>
> The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
> allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
> original software.
>
> [QUOTE MODE OFF]
>
> Now, this does not mean that I think that people who want to do this
> are bad. It's just not something I particularly support or want to
> participate in. If you want to give your stuff away, that's fine.
> But to require others to do so in order to contribute is not fine,
> and I'll not contribute, participate, or support such an attempt.
I read this completely differently. My reading is that the Debian
project wants to create a distribution that is completely unrestricted
as to people's ability to distribute it further and make
modifications, with the caveat that any modifications are similarly
unrestricted. That is, Debian wants to do in aggregate what the
individual software projects are doing individually. There's nothing
in that quoted section about wanting all software to adhere to these
conditions, merely that Debian will only incorporate software adhering
to the conditions.
There's also the issue that these conditions allow Debian to modify
the software included in its distributions, which can be essential for
applying patches (whether back-ports or developed internally) and
maintaining abandoned software.
> One of the worst things for freedom of software, IMO, was the
> development of the GPL. I do not like, and do not support the GPL,
> LGPL, or similar types of license, which Debian *does* support,
> promote, and even require contributors to use. The GPL, LGPL, and
> similar kinds of license, which Debian supports, defends, promotes,
> and requires are an attempt to change the social order.
Debian contains plenty of code released under other licenses, such as
BSD, Mozilla, Apache, X, etc. In any event, while the GPL might be
intended to change the social order, that's not a necessary
consequence of its use. At its heart, the GPL merely says that the
software is being given away freely, and you can do anything you like
with it except rescind that freedom.
> Umm, you never did have that license, then, and you used the software
> in an unauthorized manner. In short, you used a pirate copy.
Wow -- way to libel someone! He *did* say the issue was when
switching employers. Presumably, employer A had a license for the
software, but employer B did not. That license doesn't extend to the
data files that users create using the software.
--
Michael A. Marsh
http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~mmarsh
http://mamarsh.blogspot.com
Reply to: