Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure
to, 2005-11-03 kello 11:06 -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas kirjoitti: I submit anything written specifically for the Debian Project should either have some more permissive yet DFSG-compliant license or at the most GPL + an exemption for linking to other DFSG compliant software. One of Debian's main priorities is free software. Many of us are of the opinion that free software is better served by the GPL than, say, the BSD license. It would upset me, and I expect others, to have the project require, or even strongly prefer, a non-GPL license, especially so if the purpose is to allow software written for Debian to be used to create systems that are not fully free. Further, we also believe this serves users best. I strongly suggest we continue the current practice where the authors get to choose their license as they wish. -- On IRC, we sometimes like to watch silence. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: [was Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program] On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote: Remember that dpkg is GPLed, so there's a slightly awkward bootstrapping issue. This reminds me of an issue which I feel needs change but I've never felt worked up enough to do anything about. Why do programs written specifically for Debian such as dpkg or apt, have a license which is not compatible with some other DFSG-compliant licenses? Because the authors chose so. I understand we like the GPL but the DFSG is laxer in some respects. And the spirit of Debian is the DFSG not the GPL. I submit anything written specifically for the Debian Project should either have some more permissive yet DFSG-compliant license or at the most GPL + an exemption for linking to other DFSG compliant software. Is there any source with a copyright assignment for The Debian Project? Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote: Is there any source with a copyright assignment for The Debian Project? You mean to SPI? No. On purpose, I'd say. Those of us who would assign over copyright of our works would probably do so to the FSF, but that's IMHO. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote: Why do programs written specifically for Debian such as dpkg or apt, have a license which is not compatible with some other DFSG-compliant licenses? Because the authors chose so. Obviously. But the question was why they chose to do so when it goes against the spirit of the DFSG? Anyhow, Branden pointed out on IRC that the premise is incorrect. DFSG 4 for instance doesn't consider all free software licenses equal. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Lars Wirzenius wrote: to, 2005-11-03 kello 11:06 -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas kirjoitti: I submit anything written specifically for the Debian Project should either have some more permissive yet DFSG-compliant license or at the most GPL + an exemption for linking to other DFSG compliant software. One of Debian's main priorities is free software. Many of us are of the opinion that free software is better served by the GPL than, say, the BSD license. It would upset me, and I expect others, to have the project require, or even strongly prefer, a non-GPL license, especially so if the purpose is to allow software written for Debian to be used to create systems that are not fully free. Further, we also believe this serves users best. Yet we did make the kinds of compromises that open the door to not fully free software. We even confirmed we wanted that with a GR. Is this relevant? I don't know. It could be if someone were to strenuously argue for it. Which I won't. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure
Scripsit Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] I strongly suggest we continue the current practice where the authors get to choose their license as they wish. Of course there is no other way we _can_ go. If somebody decides to write cool, useful OS infrastructure software and license it under the GPL for our use, it would be absurd and meaningless, not to say silly, to decide not to use said software simply because it it is GPL'ed. The license-related criterion for including things in Debian is that the license fits the DFSG, and the (interpretation of the) DFSG has been carefully crafted to admit the GPL. This must hold whether or not the somebody who writes the infrastructure software happens to be a Debian developer or an outsider. We're all volunteers as far as the project is concerned, and we cannot even theoretically by GR force a developer to release their work under a license they don't want to. The only thing we could, in principle do, was not to use their software, but if the GPL is good enough for our principal kernel, our principal C compiler and toolchain, our basic unix toolsuite, emacs, et cetera, we would be fools to let good infrastructure code lie unused simply because of the GPL. -- Henning MakholmHe who joyfully eats soup has already earned my contempt. He has been given teeth by mistake, since for him the intestines would fully suffice. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote: Why do programs written specifically for Debian such as dpkg or apt, have a license which is not compatible with some other DFSG-compliant licenses? Because the authors chose so. Obviously. But the question was why they chose to do so when it goes against the spirit of the DFSG? They can't have deliberately chosen the GPL to be incompatible with a DFSG-(non?)compliant CDDL for two reasons: a) CDDL's DFSG-compliance has been repeated subject of debate and it didn't receive a roundabout positive review yet, afaik. b) the license choice of the authors of said utilities (GPL) most likely predates CDDL, so one can't assume that they deliberately chose to be incompatible with something that didn't exist at that point in time. CDDL only officially exists since a few seasons. For better or worse, the CDDL is GPL-incompatible by an explicit choice of its drafters. That's not necessarily something undesirable for its drafters, from a few conversations I had with people involved in that process. cheers, dalibor topic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Dalibor Topic wrote: They can't have deliberately chosen the GPL to be incompatible with a DFSG-(non?)compliant CDDL for two reasons: I was not specifically referring to the CDDL. There are other non-GPL compatible free software licenses. I strongly agree that if the CDDL is non-DFSG free then we should not make any compromises. If however it or any other otherwise DFSG-compliant license is merely GPL incompatible then we (or rather they who hold copyright) ought to consider it. That's all I'm saying. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure
Scripsit Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote: Why do programs written specifically for Debian such as dpkg or apt, have a license which is not compatible with some other DFSG-compliant licenses? Because the authors chose so. Obviously. But the question was why they chose to do so when it goes against the spirit of the DFSG? The GPL most emphatically does *not* go against the spirit of the DFSG. A very good first approximation to DFSG's concept of freedom is that 1. The GPL, version 2, is a free license. 2. The BSD license is also a free license. 3. Licenses that are sufficiently similar to the GPL or to the BSD license, or that lie somewhere in between them, are also free. Nobody have yet convinced me that this is not by design. Debian, and the free software community at large, is amicably divided between those who under no circumstances want their work used in proprietary software (and who thus favor the GPL) and those who just want their work to be reused as widely as possible (and who thus favor BSD-like licenses). The big compromise that allows the division to remain amicable and Debian to function as a conherent project - if you wish, the true underlying spirit of the DFSG - is this: Neither of these two sides get to say that the other side is wrong, not in the context of Debian. We accept *both* styles of license equally and do not *as a project* favor one over the other. People who *as individuals* contribute code get to decide which one they prefer. Drop this premise, and our project will fall apart. -- Henning Makholm ... popping pussies into pies Wouldn't do in my shop just the thought of it's enough to make you sick and I'm telling you them pussy cats is quick ... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure
Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Obviously. But the question was why they chose to do so when it goes against the spirit of the DFSG? I disagree. It does not go against the spirit of the DFSG. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure
Jaldhar H Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I strongly agree that if the CDDL is non-DFSG free then we should not make any compromises. If however it or any other otherwise DFSG-compliant license is merely GPL incompatible then we (or rather they who hold copyright) ought to consider it. That's all I'm saying. Ought to consider it for what, though? I haven't heard anything about the CDDL that would cause me to argue against inclusion of CDDL-covered software in the archive, for instance. (It's possible that it isn't DFSG-free in some obscure way -- I haven't investigated it closely.) That's not what this thread is about. What this thread is about is its incompatibility with the GPL in a fashion that directly affects the legal viability of creating a GNU/Solaris distribution that includes GPL-covered software. We can't consider ignoring that; we don't get to ignore bits of licenses that are inconvenient. Furthermore, that provision in the GPL was specifically intended to prevent exactly what people are talking about doing, admittedly for a system libc that was non-free rather than one that is free but GPL-incompatible. The simple solution to this problem is for Solaris to change the licensing on its libc to make it GPL-compatible. The chances of changing the license on all of the GPL-covered software to make it CDDL-compatible are remote at best. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:01:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: I haven't heard anything about the CDDL that would cause me to argue against inclusion of CDDL-covered software in the archive, for instance. (It's possible that it isn't DFSG-free in some obscure way -- I haven't investigated it closely.) That's not what this thread is about. There was a thread about the CDDL a few months ago on debian-legal [1]. Many people argued that it was not DFSG-free due to the choice of venue clause. I argued very fiercly that this clause did not prevent it from being a DFSG-free license. In the end though, I was convinced that this clause is in fact non-free because it imposes a serious potential burden on simply copying the software around, which is a freedom that I believe should be unrestricted. I realize that this is a contentious matter so I'm not willing to push this belief on other people, but I recommend you take a look at the thread and decide for yourself. If the Debian/OpenSolaris people are serious about becoming a subproject then the question is something that the project as a whole is going to have to deal with. - David Nusinow [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00025.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote: Why do programs written specifically for Debian such as dpkg or apt, have a license which is not compatible with some other DFSG-compliant licenses? Because the authors chose so. Obviously. But the question was why they chose to do so when it goes against the spirit of the DFSG? You really want to claim the GPL violates the spirit of the DFSG? Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote: Obviously. But the question was why they chose to do so when it goes against the spirit of the DFSG? You really want to claim the GPL violates the spirit of the DFSG? Ok because Henning made the same mistake in comprehension let me clarify. What I was saying is that licensing _only_ under the GPL violates the spirit of the DFSG because the DFSG specifically also allows for software licenses which are not GPL compatible to be considered free. Branden pointed out that this premise is incorrect because point 4 of the DFSG does suggest 1st and 2nd classes of free software licenses. In other words we are not 100% neutral to all free licenses which is the assumption I made. Henning also observed: Debian, and the free software community at large, is amicably divided between those who under no circumstances want their work used in proprietary software (and who thus favor the GPL) and those who just want their work to be reused as widely as possible (and who thus favor BSD-like licenses). I obviously prefer the second group but I too would like to remain amicable about it. Don't interpret my post as an attack on the GPL. Hope this helps. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure
Scripsit Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] What I was saying is that licensing _only_ under the GPL violates the spirit of the DFSG because the DFSG specifically also allows for software licenses which are not GPL compatible to be considered free. What you are saying is still wrong. The sprit of the DFSG is to allow software that has any DFSG-free license. Only under the GPL *is* a DFSG-free license, and therefore it is *not* counter to the spirit of the DFSG to licence software only under the GPL. Debian, and the free software community at large, is amicably divided between those who under no circumstances want their work used in proprietary software (and who thus favor the GPL) and those who just want their work to be reused as widely as possible (and who thus favor BSD-like licenses). I obviously prefer the second group but I too would like to remain amicable about it. Then I would suggest that you do not claim that the first group violates the spirit of the DFSG. -- Henning Makholm I tried whacking myself repeatedly with the cluebat. Unfortunately, it was not as effective as whacking someone else. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: [was Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program] On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote: Remember that dpkg is GPLed, so there's a slightly awkward bootstrapping issue. This reminds me of an issue which I feel needs change but I've never felt worked up enough to do anything about. Why do programs written specifically for Debian such as dpkg or apt, have a license which is not compatible with some other DFSG-compliant licenses? I understand we like the GPL but the DFSG is laxer in some respects. And the spirit of Debian is the DFSG not the GPL. Allow me to suggest alternatively that perhaps the spirit of Debian is the GPL (as evidenced that our core components are GPL'ed) , but because there is so much useful free software out there that is not GPL'ed (and is indeed more permissive to developers than the GPL) we needed some guidelines for what could be accepted and what couldn't. Hence, the DFSG. --Ken Bloom -- I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment. See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
