Re: [GNU-linux-libre] is the license of 'bass' acceptable?
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:24:21 -0400 bill-auger wrote: > > > gnutoo and i believe that per its explicit wording, it is non-free > > At the beginning I thought it was but then when I sent that mail I > > didn't read all the license > so you think it is acceptable then? - i would be satisfied with any conclusion > to this - "its fine - forget it" would surely be the easiest one I can't make sense of that. -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] is the license of 'bass' acceptable?
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 02:28:36 +0200 Denis wrote: > On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:24:21 -0400 bill-auger wrote: > > gnutoo and i believe that per its explicit wording, it is non-free > At the beginning I thought it was but then when I sent that mail I > didn't read all the license so you think it is acceptable then? - i would be satisfied with any conclusion to this - "its fine - forget it" would surely be the easiest one
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] is the license of 'bass' acceptable?
On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:24:21 -0400 bill-auger wrote: > On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:05:27 -0400 bill-auger wrote: > > may we return to the original topic? > > ill do that one better - i changed the subject and will recap > > so far: > > gnutoo and i believe that per its explicit wording, it is non-free At the beginning I thought it was but then when I sent that mail I didn't read all the license (I stopped at the first thing that looked nonfree and sent the mail to get these games removed). Denis. pgpqvVBLODZQq.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] is the license of 'bass' acceptable?
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 15:48:00 -0400 Ruben wrote: > Also I still maintain that beneath-a-steel-sky and such are under a > (badly written) free license. which brings us back to where we were last week - it seems that the license has been fully reviewed, and all opinions have been expressed on that note, ruben's opinion has sufficient merit that i would gladly change my opinion if that would help reach an actionable conclusion - the rationale being that despite the wording, the "no selling alone" requirement is trivial to satisfy, such that it does not significantly impede software freedom in practice - frankly, "in practice" is the extent of my concern; because "in practice" is what distros actually do it is also worth noting that in practice, no one _can_ sell these games alone - their combined value is substantially _less_ than the meager copying/distribution fee, which the license permits still, even if the jury is agreed unanimously, we have done nothing of consequence yet; because the judge is absent from the court
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] is the license of 'bass' acceptable?
On Fri, 07 Jul 2023 05:05:04 -0400 Richard wrote:
> I don't know what this license says, but this "precedent" argument is
> not the right way to think about these issues. If a decision is
> clearly right, we don't need to cite a precedent for it,
this post shows the dubious section of the license, and its similarity with the
analogous license section of the OFL license
https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2023-06/msg00056.html
the complete license is in this post
https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2023-04/msg00015.html
On Fri, 07 Jul 2023 05:05:04 -0400 Richard wrote:
> If we see a need to reconsider a decision, we should reconsider
> thoughtfully based on what we know and understand.
>
> Let's hope our old decisions were mostly wise and that few need
> reconsideration.
i dont know if the previous decision needs reconsidering - you are the one who
suggested that; and presumably you are the one who approved the license
originally - i was not around then - i dont know where that discussion took
place or who was involved
if the previous decision was wise, then this one ('bass') probably should be
acceptable; because the dubious section of the license is the same trivial
requirement
maybe it would be best to make a decision about this one in isolation (that
was the original purpose of this thread), then revisit the OFL license, if this
one ('bass') is not acceptable
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] is the license of 'bass' acceptable?
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > ruben suggested that the wording is confusing, and that GNU has previously > established a precedent, which accepts a license with the same confusing > requirement, and so it should be acceptable I don't know what this license says, but this "precedent" argument is not the right way to think about these issues. If a decision is clearly right, we don't need to cite a precedent for it, If we see a need to reconsider a decision, we should reconsider thoughtfully based on what we know and understand. Let's hope our old decisions were mostly wise and that few need reconsideration. -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] is the license of 'bass' acceptable?
On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 20:34:25 -0400 bill-auger wrote: > if that is the path forward, let us begin so to begin that debate, i need only to quote my previous message > gnutoo and i believe that per its explicit wording, it is non-free and add that, now jason concurs: its words, however confusing, make it non-free > ruben suggested that the wording is confusing, and that GNU has previously > established a precedent, which accepts a license with the same confusing > requirement, and so it should be acceptable OTOH, the rationale for accepting the OFL license makes perfect sense to me also - the 'bass' license does appear to afford that same interpretation - i would not hesitate to change my vote to "yay", if that is the only way to prevent this matter from remaining resolved for years to come (and by "resolved", i mean decided _and_ duly treated in all FSDG distros, which could be painful if those OFL fonts are under scrutiny, or simply never done) so again: > how shall we resolve this? if this were only an FSDG concern (no changes would need to made to the GNU licenses list), we could resolve it by consensus on this list (currently: "get rid of 'bass'" has favor) - but if the "nays" have it, then we _must_ revisit the SIL OFL decision and probably overturn it, demoting its status on the GNU licenses list, and opening a can of worms where we need to ask all of the distros to remove them, however painful removing them is likely to be - we have not a good track record of convincing distros to follow the work-group's recommendations; so i am not enthusiastic about going down that long and arduous path in any case, AFAIK the status of the SIL OFL would be a decision which only RMS can make, and that discussion, if any is necessary, probably belongs on a different mailing list - after that is decided, the unenviable task of convincing distros to purge those fonts from the system, would fall back upon us so, how do we proceed? - have we hit a brick wall on this already? - are there any more opinions or votes for "yay"?
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] is the license of 'bass' acceptable?
On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 17:03:21 -0700 Jason wrote: > Is it time to revisit the established precedent for the SIL Open Font > License? i dont know - that is exactly where the discussion left off - RMS suggested that; and AFAIK RMS is the one who made the previous determination, and only RMS could make the decision to overturn it - so its not clear where that leaves us at all i dont believe that any new information has come to light since that time; so there is probably nothing that any of us could do, other than debate the merits or flaws of the previous determination - if that is the path forward, let us begin however, i do believe that it may open a much larger can of worms though - probably 80% of all free fonts have that license
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] is the license of 'bass' acceptable?
On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:24:21 -0400 bill-auger wrote: > On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:05:27 -0400 bill-auger wrote: > > may we return to the original topic? > > ill do that one better - i changed the subject and will recap > > so far: > > gnutoo and i believe that per its explicit wording, it is non-free The license holds: > You may charge a reasonable copying fee for this archive I'm thinking of https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html which holds that > The one exception is in the case where binaries are distributed > without the corresponding complete source code. Those who do this > are required by the GNU GPL to provide source code on subsequent > request. Without a limit on the fee for the source code, they would > be able set a fee too large for anyone to pay—such as a billion > dollars—and thus pretend to release source code while in truth > concealing it. So in this case we have to limit the fee for source > in order to ensure the user's freedom. In ordinary situations, > however, there is no such justification for limiting distribution > fees, so we do not limit them. And so, in cases where distribution fees are not being limited, you should also be able to charge a distribution fee that's *un*reasonable, which makes this a non-free license. The license goes on to say: > You may not charge a fee for the game itself. This includes > reselling the game as an individual item. A program where you cannot charge for copies is also non-free. To me, both of those items plus what's stated in the preamble, tell me that the people were intending the copies be distributed gratis. > ruben suggested that the wording is confusing, and that GNU has > previously established a precedent, which accepts a license with > the same confusing requirement, and so it should be acceptable > > RMS threw us a curve-ball, and suggested that the previously > established precedent should be reviewed or revised first > > how shall we resolve this? Is it time to revisit the established precedent for the SIL Open Font License? pgpy6VXm7MXcJ.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[GNU-linux-libre] is the license of 'bass' acceptable?
On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:05:27 -0400 bill-auger wrote: > may we return to the original topic? ill do that one better - i changed the subject and will recap so far: gnutoo and i believe that per its explicit wording, it is non-free ruben suggested that the wording is confusing, and that GNU has previously established a precedent, which accepts a license with the same confusing requirement, and so it should be acceptable RMS threw us a curve-ball, and suggested that the previously established precedent should be reviewed or revised first how shall we resolve this?
