Relicensing rules (was: Re: BitKeeper)
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 01:13:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: >> OK, perhaps the relicensing rule is not non-free; I'm less sure of >> that. > > I don't think it's obvious from a casual reading of the DFSG that such a > requirement is non-free, but perhaps it should be. I don't think it is obvious from a very through reading of the DFSG that such requirement is non-free. I would judge that it was eiter considered free or never even thought about when the DFSG was written. (probaly the second reason) I don't see any reason for making such requirements non-free. I still got all the freedoms FSF prescribes, I can make modifications and share them. I cannot decide myself under which license my modifications is distributed under but not even GPL allows me to do that. The only reasonable change in this direction I could see for the DFSG is to use some sort of O'Reillys Zeroth Freedom (If I understand him correctly): You should be able to make modifications on you own premisses. No matter how much I like this freedom for my own works I wouldn't like see it in DFSG. It would render GPL and copyleft-licenses in general non-free. Shouldn't we move this to debian-project or debian-legal? -- Når folk spørger mig, om jeg er nørd, bliver jeg altid ilde til mode og svarer lidt undskyldende: "Nej, jeg bruger RedHat". -- Allan Olesen på dk.edb.system.unix
Re: BitKeeper
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 01:13:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > OK, perhaps the relicensing rule is not non-free; I'm less sure of > that. I don't think it's obvious from a casual reading of the DFSG that such a requirement is non-free, but perhaps it should be. -- G. Branden Robinson| Exercise your freedom of religion. Debian GNU/Linux | Set fire to a church of your [EMAIL PROTECTED] | choice. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpNhJA9inbQx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: BitKeeper
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > OK, perhaps the relicensing rule is not non-free; I'm less sure of > that. But the outright prohibition of certain modifications certainly > kills it. I only talked about the relicensing issues. I'm sorry it wasn't clear by my quoting (I can see that my quotes could easily be misunderstood) > 1) Regardless of whether various legislatures have redefined the word >"terrorism" to include illegal breaking into computers, I don't >accede to their craziness. Wrong, perhaps, but not terrorism. I think I learned the word terrorism in relation to the European terrorism in the 70's. I am quite aware that it has nothing to do with the paranoia of today. You idea reminds me about that kind of terrorism. -- Når folk spørger mig, om jeg er nørd, bliver jeg altid ilde til mode og svarer lidt undskyldende: "Nej, jeg bruger RedHat". -- Allan Olesen på dk.edb.system.unix
Re: BitKeeper
Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > > > Bitkeeper is (as you note) not free. Not only the usage restrictions > > are a problem, but also the requirement that changes you make may be > > distributed by BitOwner "under any license". > > Thats not non-free in any way. The Freedom DFSG describes is not > freedom for the developers but for the users and such restriction > doesn't apply to ordinary users. The NPL (and MPL IIRC) has the same > requirements. OK, perhaps the relicensing rule is not non-free; I'm less sure of that. But the outright prohibition of certain modifications certainly kills it. > > One strategy would be to bring down all the Open Logging servers, and > > keep them down for six months. Then it reverts to the GPL. :) > > Please don't even suggest such actions not even in jokes. It would be > very sad to see Open Source fanatics use terorism to spread the use of > open source. 1) Regardless of whether various legislatures have redefined the word "terrorism" to include illegal breaking into computers, I don't accede to their craziness. Wrong, perhaps, but not terrorism. 2) It's a joke. It would be very sad to see Open Source fanatics begin to treat everything as so deadly serious.
Re: BitKeeper
> "Peter" == Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Peter> There is nothing in the DFSG saying the a licens can't Peter> require you to give the original autor all rights to you Peter> changes. So that single part of the license I refered to Peter> does not makes it even more or even less non-free. If fact, you could argue that the above is just a special case of the rights bestowed to you by the GPL. -- Stephen "A duck!"
Re: BitKeeper
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 02:52:01AM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > (crossposted to debian-legal for input on the license; please direct > followups to -devel or -legal as appropriate) > > Has anyone looked into packaging BitKeeper (www.bitkeeper.com)? We have a package here which we build from the various binary shars available on Bitmover's FTP site. I can share with you if you'd like, but it's really trivial. > The > license[0] is obviously non-free due to usage restrictions, but people seem > to like it, and some of the licensing restrictions are arguably in defense > of other kinds of freedom. > Yep. It's annoying. The license (and the enforcement code in the software itself) has a number of practical issues which make using BitKeeper very unpleasant at times even if you pay Bitmover to disable the logging stuff. > I am not interested in packaging it at this > time, but I might file an RFP unless someone knows of a reason why it can't > be packaged for non-free. > > [0] http://www.bitkeeper.com/Sales.Licensing.Source.html > It's probably OK for non-free. -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BitKeeper
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Please elaborate. There is nothing in the DFSG saying the a licens can't require you to give the original autor all rights to you changes. So that single part of the license I refered to does not makes it even more or even less non-free. -- Når folk spørger mig, om jeg er nørd, bliver jeg altid ilde til mode og svarer lidt undskyldende: "Nej, jeg bruger RedHat". -- Allan Olesen på dk.edb.system.unix
Re: BitKeeper
Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit: > > Bitkeeper is (as you note) not free. Not only the usage restrictions > > are a problem, but also the requirement that changes you make may be > > distributed by BitOwner "under any license". > > Thats not non-free in any way. The Freedom DFSG describes is not > freedom for the developers but for the users and such restriction > doesn't apply to ordinary users. The NPL (and MPL IIRC) has the same > requirements. Please elaborate. The license in discussion sounds quite non-free. It takes away the freedom to rewrite the software. It demands the software derived from it to pass the regression tests that they provide. Please come back when you have read the DFSG and the corresponding license in question. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4
Re: BitKeeper
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > Bitkeeper is (as you note) not free. Not only the usage restrictions > are a problem, but also the requirement that changes you make may be > distributed by BitOwner "under any license". Thats not non-free in any way. The Freedom DFSG describes is not freedom for the developers but for the users and such restriction doesn't apply to ordinary users. The NPL (and MPL IIRC) has the same requirements. > One strategy would be to bring down all the Open Logging servers, and > keep them down for six months. Then it reverts to the GPL. :) Please don't even suggest such actions not even in jokes. It would be very sad to see Open Source fanatics use terorism to spread the use of open source. -- Når folk spørger mig, om jeg er nørd, bliver jeg altid ilde til mode og svarer lidt undskyldende: "Nej, jeg bruger RedHat". -- Allan Olesen på dk.edb.system.unix
Re: BitKeeper
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Has anyone looked into packaging BitKeeper (www.bitkeeper.com)? The > license[0] is obviously non-free due to usage restrictions, but people seem > to like it, and some of the licensing restrictions are arguably in defense > of other kinds of freedom. I am not interested in packaging it at this > time, but I might file an RFP unless someone knows of a reason why it can't > be packaged for non-free. Bitkeeper is (as you note) not free. Not only the usage restrictions are a problem, but also the requirement that changes you make may be distributed by BitOwner "under any license". However, I can see nothing which would preclude its inclusion in the non-free collection (provided the maintainer does not make any of the kinds of changes to the software that would violate the license). Since I object to the existence of the non-free collection, I can't actually recommend any course of action. One strategy would be to bring down all the Open Logging servers, and keep them down for six months. Then it reverts to the GPL. :) Thomas
