Re: Ironies abound

[Andrew Donnellan]

On 1/21/06, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Küster wrote:
>
> > Do you have links or references for this trademark thingie?  I read it
> > so many times that I tend to believe it's true, but never found and
> > conclusive evidence...
>
> Well, the definitely filed for it. Go to
> http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm, click on "SEARCH trademarks",
> then "New User Search (Basic)", then search for 73478133 is "serial or
> registration number"
>
> It says there that it was "abandoned", I'm not quite sure what that means.
>

Unenforced?

andrew

--
Andrew Donnellan
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com
Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au
Debian user - http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net

Re: Ironies abound

[Anthony DeRobertis]

Frank Küster wrote:

> Do you have links or references for this trademark thingie?  I read it
> so many times that I tend to believe it's true, but never found and
> conclusive evidence...

Well, the definitely filed for it. Go to
http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm, click on "SEARCH trademarks",
then "New User Search (Basic)", then search for 73478133 is "serial or
registration number"

It says there that it was "abandoned", I'm not quite sure what that means.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Later in the file, it is written:
>
> ,
> | If this program is changed, the resulting system should not be called
> | `\TeX'; the official name `\TeX' by itself is reserved
> | for software systems that are fully compatible with each other.
> | A special test suite called the ``\.{TRIP} test'' is available for
> | helping to determine whether a particular implementation deserves to be
> | known as `\TeX' [cf.~Stanford Computer Science report CS1027,
> | November 1984].
> `

But this is right after a paragraph that speaks about "the \.{WEB}
description can be extended without changing the core of \TeX82
itself", which appears to allude to distributing patches without
actually modifying tex.web.

> http://www.tug.org/TUGboat/Articles/tb07-2/tb15knut.pdf where he also
> says:

> ,
> | All of the methods described in these books are in the public domain;
> | thus anybody can freely use any of the ideas. The only thing I'm
> | retaining control of is the names, TeX and METAFONT: products that go
> | by this name are are obliged to conform to the standard. If any
> | changes are made, I won't complain, as long as the changed systems are
> | not called TeX or METAFONT.9
> `

But _methods_ and _ideas_ were never protected by copyright in the
first place.

-- 
Henning Makholm  "Wir kommen nun ans Ziel unserer Ausführungen."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> To the best of my knowledge, TeX is explicitly in the public domain,

But the only source we have for that seems to be the article by Knuth
that you cite (I have also searched the web without getting anywhere
else):

> Some searching around led to an article "The Future of TeX and
> Metafont", written by Knuth, a copy of which is available at
> .  From this article:
>> I have put these systems into the public domain so that people
>> everywhere can use the ideas freely if they wish.
> [...]
>> anybody can make use of my programs in whatever way they wish, as
>> long as they do not use the names TeX, Metafont, or Computer Modern.

> [followed by conditions for using the names based on a test suite]

We're usually cautious, with good reason, when an author claims to
have put something into the public domain, and proceed immediately by
giving restrictions on how one can change it. Ordinarily we conclude
that the author's declaration must have used a different meaning of
"public domain" that the common one (perhaps "gratis").

In fact, when Knuth writes in the continuation:

| In particular, any person or group who wants to produce a program
| superior to mine is free to do so. However, nobody is allowed to
| call a system TeX or Metafont unless that system conforms 100% to my
| own programs, as I have specified in the manuals for the trip and
| trap tests.

it seems that he merely purports to "allow" any person or group to
produce a better program by writing it from scratch; there is no
indication in the text that he is authorizing anybody to derive it
from his source from TeX.

> Further searching reveals several sources that indicate the American
> Mathematical Society obtained a trademark on the name TeX for the
> purposes of enforcing those conditions.  Given the limitations on the
> scope of such a trademark, I don't believe this can render the program
> non-free.

I agree that trademarks probably cannot by themselves make software
non-free, but I'm questioning whether the _copyright_ status of the
work is OK.

-- 
Henning Makholm  "The bread says TOAST."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Matthew Palmer]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:46:52PM +0100, Yorick Cool wrote:
> What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?

A billy goat gruff, if I remember my mythology correctly.

- Matt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Clause 7d (was Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Gervase Markham]

Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> So here it is:
> "7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to 
> have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and 
> receive copies of the work."

I like this, together with Arnoud's suggestions. But Walter is right;
the devil is in the detail of defining "user". In order for the clause
to maintain the "market in addon clauses" which the FSF has talked
about, you have to leave it up to the specific clause to define where
the line is. And then debian-legal will have the lovely job of judging
27 different variants and deciding which ones are free.

There's also a comment discussing potential revisions of this clause on
their wiki-like thing. It has my suggestion in, which is along the same
lines, but I like yours better.
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?id=204

I think it's inevitable that, whatever this clause ends up like, it'll
be possible to write a non-free additional term with it. But we can at
least get it phrased in a way which makes it possible to, and encourages
people to write free terms.

Gerv




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hands Off Yorick!

On 1/19/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
>
> A clue-by-four, the same as used for top-post/whole-quoters.
>
> (ObSerious: please stop feeding the troll, please follow
> the code of conduct and no top-posting. That means you.)
>
> --
> MJR/slef
> My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
> Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

regards,
alexander.

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[MJ Ray]

Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?

A clue-by-four, the same as used for top-post/whole-quoters.

(ObSerious: please stop feeding the troll, please follow
the code of conduct and no top-posting. That means you.)

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/19/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > compatible with itself
>
> The GPL is incompatible with itself. [ ... Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01 ...]

Beside that,

http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/09/22/gpl3.html?page=2

RMS:

-
Even small changes from version 2 of the GPL will result in an incompatible
license. Two slightly different licenses, each saying that modified versions of
a program must be distributed under the same license, are inevitably
incompatible. That's why we suggest that programs permit use of future
versions of the GPL. It is the only way they can migrate.
-

regards,
alexander.

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/19/06, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?

A troll hunter.

regards,
alexander.

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Yorick Cool]

What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?

On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:33:41PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander> On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alexander> [...]
Alexander> > compatible with itself
Alexander> 
Alexander> The GPL is incompatible with itself.
Alexander> 
Alexander> 
Alexander> 
Alexander> A recent press conference of the Free Software Foundation confirmed
Alexander> the rumors that the GNU General Public License was found to be
Alexander> incompatible with itself. This newly discovered fact may actually
Alexander> cause a lot of disorder in the free software world in which most
Alexander> programs and libraries are licensed under this license.
Alexander> 
Alexander> Richard Stallman, chairman of the FSF, called upon developers to
Alexander> immediately exempt GPL-licensed software from the GPL, as far as
Alexander> linking them with GPL programs is concerned. "We have already made
Alexander> sure all GNU software and every other software that is licensed to
Alexander> the Free Software Foundation would be ad-hoc compatible with itself.
Alexander> However we need other developers to do the same for their software",
Alexander> Stallman said.
Alexander> 
Alexander> Eben Moglen, the FSF's attorney outlined the subsequent steps that
Alexander> his organization will take to overcome this crisis. The first step
Alexander> would be releasing a Modified General Public License (or MGPL for
Alexander> short) that will be compatible with the GPL and with itself as well
Alexander> as with all other licenses that the GPL is already compatible with.
Alexander> It will be labeled the GPL version 2.1, thus allowing developers to
Alexander> convert their software to it. He noted that care would be taken to
Alexander> make sure the upcoming GPL version 3.0 will be compatible with
Alexander> itself, as well as the MGPL.
Alexander> 
Alexander> For the time being, though, there is an explosion of commentary,
Alexander> confusion and otherwise bad temper about the newly formed situation.
Alexander> Eric S. Raymond, the famous Open Source Guru notes: "This is one of
Alexander> the greatest blows to the Open Source world, I have yet encountered.
Alexander> I have already exempted all of my own software from the GPL in this
Alexander> regard, but there is a lot of other software out there, and many of
Alexander> its authors are not very communicative.
Alexander> 
Alexander> Bill Gates, Microsoft's co-founder, on the other hand, seems to
Alexander> find the situation very amusing: "I said times and again, that
Alexander> viral licenses such as the GPL are a bad idea, and many open-source
Alexander> advocates disagreed. Now they see that even making sure one's
Alexander> license is compatible with itself, is hard to do when you open that
Alexander> can of worms."
Alexander> 
Alexander> The integrity of many software projects whose license is the GPL and
Alexander> yet contain works licensed by several developers is in jeopardy. The
Alexander> Linux kernel is a prominent example of such a case. In a post to its
Alexander> mailing list, Linus Torvalds commented that, in their case, it was
Alexander> not an issue. "My interpretation of the GPL is already quite unusual,
Alexander> so I'll simply rule that I also interpret the GPL as compatible with
Alexander> itself."
Alexander> 
Alexander> 
Alexander> 
Alexander> regards,
Alexander> alexander.
Alexander> 
Alexander> ***) Posted by Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01
Alexander> 

-- 
Yorick 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> compatible with itself

The GPL is incompatible with itself.



A recent press conference of the Free Software Foundation confirmed
the rumors that the GNU General Public License was found to be
incompatible with itself. This newly discovered fact may actually
cause a lot of disorder in the free software world in which most
programs and libraries are licensed under this license.

Richard Stallman, chairman of the FSF, called upon developers to
immediately exempt GPL-licensed software from the GPL, as far as
linking them with GPL programs is concerned. "We have already made
sure all GNU software and every other software that is licensed to
the Free Software Foundation would be ad-hoc compatible with itself.
However we need other developers to do the same for their software",
Stallman said.

Eben Moglen, the FSF's attorney outlined the subsequent steps that
his organization will take to overcome this crisis. The first step
would be releasing a Modified General Public License (or MGPL for
short) that will be compatible with the GPL and with itself as well
as with all other licenses that the GPL is already compatible with.
It will be labeled the GPL version 2.1, thus allowing developers to
convert their software to it. He noted that care would be taken to
make sure the upcoming GPL version 3.0 will be compatible with
itself, as well as the MGPL.

For the time being, though, there is an explosion of commentary,
confusion and otherwise bad temper about the newly formed situation.
Eric S. Raymond, the famous Open Source Guru notes: "This is one of
the greatest blows to the Open Source world, I have yet encountered.
I have already exempted all of my own software from the GPL in this
regard, but there is a lot of other software out there, and many of
its authors are not very communicative.

Bill Gates, Microsoft's co-founder, on the other hand, seems to
find the situation very amusing: "I said times and again, that
viral licenses such as the GPL are a bad idea, and many open-source
advocates disagreed. Now they see that even making sure one's
license is compatible with itself, is hard to do when you open that
can of worms."

The integrity of many software projects whose license is the GPL and
yet contain works licensed by several developers is in jeopardy. The
Linux kernel is a prominent example of such a case. In a post to its
mailing list, Linus Torvalds commented that, in their case, it was
not an issue. "My interpretation of the GPL is already quite unusual,
so I'll simply rule that I also interpret the GPL as compatible with
itself."



regards,
alexander.

***) Posted by Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01

Re: Ironies abound

[Frank Küster]

Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> Did we ever find concrete evidence that TeX comes with a license to
>> create modified versions under different names? The copyright notice
>> at the top of tex.web presents only the patch option, and
>> /usr/share/doc/tetex-bin/copyright is not of much help.

Our copyright file is a nightmare, we really *ought* to sort out which
file is under which copyright and license, and document that.  I still
hope we'll manage it for etch.  As for tex.web, the notice at the top is
misleading, it seems to assume that copying means that the name is
unchanged.  Later in the file, it is written:

,
| If this program is changed, the resulting system should not be called
| `\TeX'; the official name `\TeX' by itself is reserved
| for software systems that are fully compatible with each other.
| A special test suite called the ``\.{TRIP} test'' is available for
| helping to determine whether a particular implementation deserves to be
| known as `\TeX' [cf.~Stanford Computer Science report CS1027,
| November 1984].
`

> Some searching around led to an article "The Future of TeX and
> Metafont", written by Knuth, a copy of which is available at
> .  From this article:
>> I have put these systems into the public domain so that people
>> everywhere can use the ideas freely if they wish.
> [...]
>> anybody can make use of my programs in whatever way they wish, as
>> long as they do not use the names TeX, Metafont, or Computer Modern.
> [followed by conditions for using the names based on a test suite]

The wikipedia article for TeX is also a starting point, it leads to a
different article by DEK.  It's split into two pdf files, the beginning
is in http://www.tug.org/TUGboat/Articles/tb07-2/tb15gordon.pdf, the
interesting part in
http://www.tug.org/TUGboat/Articles/tb07-2/tb15knut.pdf where he also
says:

,
| All of the methods described in these books are in the public domain;
| thus anybody can freely use any of the ideas. The only thing I'm
| retaining control of is the names, TeX and METAFONT: products that go
| by this name are are obliged to conform to the standard. If any
| changes are made, I won't complain, as long as the changed systems are
| not called TeX or METAFONT.9
`

> Further searching reveals several sources that indicate the American
> Mathematical Society obtained a trademark on the name TeX for the
> purposes of enforcing those conditions.  Given the limitations on the
> scope of such a trademark, I don't believe this can render the program
> non-free.  In the worst case, it might be necessary to expunge
> non-functional references to the names before making modifications.

Do you have links or references for this trademark thingie?  I read it
so many times that I tend to believe it's true, but never found and
conclusive evidence...

> As far as LaTeX goes, the LPPL has been fixed, though there is still a
> need to do a license audit to check for packages which add additional
> restrictions.

... and for packages with non-free docs.  Any help is appreciated.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Glenn Maynard]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:14:03PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Have you heard argument three?
> "A new license incompatible with all other free software licenses practically 
> prohibits code reuse in the same way.  This sucks, but we consider it Free 
> (while discouraging it).  Patch clauses suck in the exact same way, so we 
> should consider them Free too (while discouraging them)."

The difference is that such a license is at least compatible with itself: if
you put your software under the same license, or something almost guaranteed 
to be compatible (eg. public domain), you can reuse the code.  Patch clauses
aren't even "compatible" with themselves: putting your work under the same
license doesn't fix it.

Also, a license incompatible with other licenses wouldn't cause problems like
"can't put the code in CVS".  I have trouble viewing any software under a
license that prohibits the use of ordinary source control as a valuable
contribution to free software.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Nathanael Nerode]

Glenn Maynard wrote:
> No, I've described why they practically *prohibit* code reuse.  The only
> counterarguments I've ever seen are:
> 
>  - "code reuse isn't important" (often thinly veiled as eg. "you don't
>really need to reuse code, you can always rewrite it"), and
>  - "if you really want to reuse code, you can create a complex, massively
>impractical patching system to handle it" (and I'm not convinced that's
>even possible, when two separate patch-clause code bits end up mashed
>closely together).
Incidentally, I think you're right about this; I don't really see how to 
distribute a single file in the form of a patch to TeX and a patch to, say, 
an old release of Qt (under their patch clause) simultaneously.  If I put the 
Qt code into the patch to TeX, I violate the Qt license; if I put the TeX 
code into the patch to Qt, I violate the TeX license; if I do neither, I 
violate both licenses.

Have you heard argument three?
"A new license incompatible with all other free software licenses practically 
prohibits code reuse in the same way.  This sucks, but we consider it Free 
(while discouraging it).  Patch clauses suck in the exact same way, so we 
should consider them Free too (while discouraging them)."




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Clause 7d (was Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/18/06, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...}
> What do other people think of this?

I think the GPLv3 is great. It's perfect impotence pill for (ordinary
contractual) stuff like OSL, IPL, CPL and whatnot the FSF is going to
deem now "compatible".

The OSI approval (I just pray that someone submits it) will be fun.

regards,
alexander.

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Glenn Maynard]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:18:10PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> But in that case, you might find it more fruitful to discuss this clause
> with the FSF itself rather than with debian-legal.

Well, I'm not discussing these things here to try to get the weight of "this
would make Debian call the GPLv3 non-free", since the GFDL showed just how
much weight that holds with the FSF.  I do want to know what others here
think about these things, though, and to let anyone who agrees with these
things to lend their voice to fixing them.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Clause 7d (was Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Matthew Palmer]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:52:39AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Well, I did devise a potentially Free alternative for the infamous clause 7d 
> after an hour or two's thought.
> 
> The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather 
> than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting 
> errors.  By restricting the functionality of the program and all derivative 
> works, it causes endless trouble.  Instead, I attempted to rewrite this as a 
> restriction which could be imposed on the recipients of the license.
> 
> So here it is:
> "7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to 
> have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and 
> receive copies of the work."
> 
> This leverages the careful definition of "propagate" up top, so that it 
> avoids 
> restricting any acitivities which do not require a copyright license.

Neat, although a little hard to understand at first without the context of
what it's referring to (Affero-like clauses).  I certainly like it a lot
more than the original, though, for all of the reasons you cited.

> What do other people think of this?  It's sort of a forced distribution 
> clause, but it only forces distribution to the people you're already allowing 
> to use the program.  If it's considered acceptable, we could push to have 
> this replace the proposed (7d).

I like it, and I think it should be definitely be submitted to the FSF for
consideration.

- Matt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound

[Josh Triplett]

Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>It would be useful, before proposing a GR to do so, to have a list of
>>all the packages currently in main which would become non-free if this
>>clause were abolished, as well as any well-known licenses which might be
>>affected.
> 
> Did we ever find concrete evidence that TeX comes with a license to
> create modified versions under different names? The copyright notice
> at the top of tex.web presents only the patch option, and
> /usr/share/doc/tetex-bin/copyright is not of much help.

To the best of my knowledge, TeX is explicitly in the public domain, and
the only restrictions on it are based on the trademark on the name
"TeX".  Trademarks cannot legally affect functional elements, in order
to avoid abusing trademarks, which are perpetual as long as they
continue to be used and enforced, to create other perpetual
restrictions.  For example, if you make it a requirement to pass a
trademarked name to a function in order to use it, people may do so
without a trademark license from you.  Filenames are a functional
element.  Therefore, a trademark alone cannot restrict the use of a
given filename.  (Not a lawyer, not legal advice, etc.)

Some searching around led to an article "The Future of TeX and
Metafont", written by Knuth, a copy of which is available at
.  From this article:
> I have put these systems into the public domain so that people
> everywhere can use the ideas freely if they wish.
[...]
> anybody can make use of my programs in whatever way they wish, as
> long as they do not use the names TeX, Metafont, or Computer Modern.
[followed by conditions for using the names based on a test suite]

Further searching reveals several sources that indicate the American
Mathematical Society obtained a trademark on the name TeX for the
purposes of enforcing those conditions.  Given the limitations on the
scope of such a trademark, I don't believe this can render the program
non-free.  In the worst case, it might be necessary to expunge
non-functional references to the names before making modifications.

As far as LaTeX goes, the LPPL has been fixed, though there is still a
need to do a license audit to check for packages which add additional
restrictions.

- Josh Triplett


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Clause 7d (was Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/18/06, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Also, how about just "to receive copies" and add "under the terms
> of this License".

Sneaky. But it won't help.

GPLv3 9.[5] Not a Contract. ("You are not required to accept this
License in order to receive a copy of the Program.")

regards,
alexander.

Re: Clause 7d (was Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> "7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to 
> have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and 
> receive copies of the work."

This sounds a lot better. I would suggest using "work based on the
Program" to re-use that definition as well. Also, how about just
"to receive copies" and add "under the terms of this License".

Or maybe refer to the article that allows you to make copies.
Then you nicely catch all the other requirements that you have to
fulfil (storage medium, written offer, etc). 

And this just occurs to me: do I need to have a world-readable
/usr/src if I let people log into my system and use a tool that
is GPLv3 with 7d enabled? 

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Clause 7d (was Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Josh Triplett]

Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather 
> than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting 
> errors.  By restricting the functionality of the program and all derivative 
> works, it causes endless trouble.

That perfectly describes my problem with the clause as written.

> Instead, I attempted to rewrite this as a 
> restriction which could be imposed on the recipients of the license.
> 
> So here it is:
> "7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to 
> have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and 
> receive copies of the work."
> 
> This leverages the careful definition of "propagate" up top, so that it 
> avoids 
> restricting any acitivities which do not require a copyright license.
> 
> A restriction along these lines would mean that
> (1) it imposes no restrictions on the *writers* of derivative works
> (2) If you've already distributed (or offered to distribute) the work to all 
> its users (the normal case and the troublesome one for the original clause), 
> you have no additional obligations
> (3) making the program available for users over the Internet (or on a local 
> server) -- if and only if that requires a copyright license, which it 
> probably does -- requires that you provide access to the source code to those 
> users, according to the usual GPL v3 clauses regarding distributing copies.
> 
> What do other people think of this?  It's sort of a forced distribution 
> clause, but it only forces distribution to the people you're already allowing 
> to use the program.  If it's considered acceptable, we could push to have 
> this replace the proposed (7d).

I believe this clause addresses the issue perfectly, and I agree with
proposing it as a replacement.

- Josh Triplett


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Glenn Maynard]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 04:08:31PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You're asking me to repeat the entire discussion I just had with you and
> > Michael, where I explained very explicitly the serious problems of patch
> > clauses?  If you've accidentally deleted your mailbox, I'm sure it's in
> > the list archives.
> 
> No, you've described why they cause practical inconvenience. You haven't
> described why everyone else ever was wrong.

No, I've described why they practically *prohibit* code reuse.  The only
counterarguments I've ever seen are:

 - "code reuse isn't important" (often thinly veiled as eg. "you don't
   really need to reuse code, you can always rewrite it"), and
 - "if you really want to reuse code, you can create a complex, massively
   impractical patching system to handle it" (and I'm not convinced that's
   even possible, when two separate patch-clause code bits end up mashed
   closely together).

Now you're not even giving an argument; you're merely appealing to the
crowd.  Since it would take a GR to fix this, anyway, that's not very
interesting; if the crowd really does agree with you that code reuse
isn't very important, such a GR would fail.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Clause 7d (was Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Nathanael Nerode]

Well, I did devise a potentially Free alternative for the infamous clause 7d 
after an hour or two's thought.

The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather 
than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting 
errors.  By restricting the functionality of the program and all derivative 
works, it causes endless trouble.  Instead, I attempted to rewrite this as a 
restriction which could be imposed on the recipients of the license.

So here it is:
"7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to 
have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and 
receive copies of the work."

This leverages the careful definition of "propagate" up top, so that it avoids 
restricting any acitivities which do not require a copyright license.

A restriction along these lines would mean that
(1) it imposes no restrictions on the *writers* of derivative works
(2) If you've already distributed (or offered to distribute) the work to all 
its users (the normal case and the troublesome one for the original clause), 
you have no additional obligations
(3) making the program available for users over the Internet (or on a local 
server) -- if and only if that requires a copyright license, which it 
probably does -- requires that you provide access to the source code to those 
users, according to the usual GPL v3 clauses regarding distributing copies.

What do other people think of this?  It's sort of a forced distribution 
clause, but it only forces distribution to the people you're already allowing 
to use the program.  If it's considered acceptable, we could push to have 
this replace the proposed (7d).


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> It would be useful, before proposing a GR to do so, to have a list of
> all the packages currently in main which would become non-free if this
> clause were abolished, as well as any well-known licenses which might be
> affected.

Did we ever find concrete evidence that TeX comes with a license to
create modified versions under different names? The copyright notice
at the top of tex.web presents only the patch option, and
/usr/share/doc/tetex-bin/copyright is not of much help.

-- 
Henning Makholm  "Ambiguous cases are defined as those for which the
   compiler being used finds a legitimate interpretation
   which is different from that which the user had in mind."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Matthew Garrett]

Michio Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Is not looking bad more important than getting it right eventually?
> (Start aliasing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to /dev/null: a big BTS looks bad.)

Nngh.

> Another irony. I thought Matthew Garrett usually argued for
> changing views at the drop of a hat. For example, changing
> position and letting the project sell stuff near the end of
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/09/msg00091.html
> even though saying "we used to say that we wouldn't compete
> with debian retailers, but now we've decided that we will"
> looks astonishingly bad.

You seem to have misunderstood me. I'm not saying that changing our
minds on things is bad. I'm saying that diverging from the rest of the
community for no good reason looks bad. It's hardly as if patch clauses
were badly understood when the DFSG were written. There's no way you can
claim "Oh, they didn't know what they were talking about". The people
who wrote this document considered the issue and decided that the
practical implications were not sufficiently offensive to avoid
describing them as free.

Since then, the practical freedoms provided by patch clauses have
increased. Altering the DFSG would be a clear redefinition of our stance
on freedom, and there would be no way that anyone could argue that it
was in any way in line with community consensus. Do I think that would
look bad? Yes, I do. The DFSG should reflect reality, like our website
should do.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My preferred name is "you"


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Matthew Garrett]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:24:19AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> What mistakes? Pretty much the entire free software community believes
>> that patch-clause licenses are acceptable. Why do you think that they're
>> not?
> 
> You're asking me to repeat the entire discussion I just had with you and
> Michael, where I explained very explicitly the serious problems of patch
> clauses?  If you've accidentally deleted your mailbox, I'm sure it's in
> the list archives.

No, you've described why they cause practical inconvenience. You haven't
described why everyone else ever was wrong.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[MJ Ray]

Matthew Garrett:
> Because saying "We used to think that this sort of license provided you
> with all necessary freedoms, but now we've decided that it doesn't"
> looks astonishingly bad?

Is not looking bad more important than getting it right eventually?
(Start aliasing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to /dev/null: a big BTS looks bad.)

Another irony. I thought Matthew Garrett usually argued for
changing views at the drop of a hat. For example, changing
position and letting the project sell stuff near the end of
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/09/msg00091.html
even though saying "we used to say that we wouldn't compete
with debian retailers, but now we've decided that we will"
looks astonishingly bad.

I don't think looking bad is a good reason not to
re-evaluate a position, but let's honour past agreements
until obsoleted.

Personally, I think some patch clauses are free enough to
allow the four freedoms, although most are a nuisance
in practice. I'm happy to discuss that: why not?

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Marco d'Itri]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively
>horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But
>deciding that they're not free any more would involve altering our
>standards of freedom, and I don't see any way that we can reasonably do
>that.
Agreed. The original DFSG used to reflect pretty well what was the
consensus about freedom in the free software community (not just
Debian). While patch clauses are indeed highly annoying they have always
been widely considered free, both in and outside Debian.
It's unfortunate that, after trying for years to subtly change its
meaning, newcomers now are proposing to radically remove some of its
balances.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Glenn Maynard]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:24:19AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:47:18AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Because saying "We used to think that this sort of license provided you
> >> with all necessary freedoms, but now we've decided that it doesn't"
> >> looks astonishingly bad?
> > 
> > So the real reason not to fix it is to save face by not admitting mistakes.
> > I expected better from Debian; don't ask me why.
> 
> What mistakes? Pretty much the entire free software community believes
> that patch-clause licenses are acceptable. Why do you think that they're
> not?

You're asking me to repeat the entire discussion I just had with you and
Michael, where I explained very explicitly the serious problems of patch
clauses?  If you've accidentally deleted your mailbox, I'm sure it's in
the list archives.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Matthew Garrett]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:47:18AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Because saying "We used to think that this sort of license provided you
>> with all necessary freedoms, but now we've decided that it doesn't"
>> looks astonishingly bad?
> 
> So the real reason not to fix it is to save face by not admitting mistakes.
> I expected better from Debian; don't ask me why.

What mistakes? Pretty much the entire free software community believes
that patch-clause licenses are acceptable. Why do you think that they're
not?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Glenn Maynard]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:47:18AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively
> >> horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But
> >> deciding that they're not free any more would involve altering our
> >> standards of freedom, and I don't see any way that we can reasonably do
> >> that.
> > 
> > Why not?  There is an established procedure in place for doing so.
> > Obviously such a thing should not be done lightly, but that doesn't mean
> > it cannot be reasonably done at all.
> 
> Because saying "We used to think that this sort of license provided you
> with all necessary freedoms, but now we've decided that it doesn't"
> looks astonishingly bad?

So the real reason not to fix it is to save face by not admitting mistakes.
I expected better from Debian; don't ask me why.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Matthew Garrett]

Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively
>> horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But
>> deciding that they're not free any more would involve altering our
>> standards of freedom, and I don't see any way that we can reasonably do
>> that.
> 
> Why not?  There is an established procedure in place for doing so.
> Obviously such a thing should not be done lightly, but that doesn't mean
> it cannot be reasonably done at all.

Because saying "We used to think that this sort of license provided you
with all necessary freedoms, but now we've decided that it doesn't"
looks astonishingly bad?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Josh Triplett]

Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I also don't understand why anyone would actually want to defend patch
>>clauses.  There are very few of them left, so I don't think there's much
>>of that "don't want my pet package declared non-free" agenda going on,
>>and it seems like an obviously unreasonable hurdle to reuse.  It seems
>>like a compromise whose time has passed.
> 
> I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively
> horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But
> deciding that they're not free any more would involve altering our
> standards of freedom, and I don't see any way that we can reasonably do
> that.

Why not?  There is an established procedure in place for doing so.
Obviously such a thing should not be done lightly, but that doesn't mean
it cannot be reasonably done at all.

It would be useful, before proposing a GR to do so, to have a list of
all the packages currently in main which would become non-free if this
clause were abolished, as well as any well-known licenses which might be
affected.  Offhand, the only package I know of which is currently in
main and under a patch-clause license is gnuplot, and I don't know of
any well-known DFSG-free licenses (used on more than one project) which
include a patch clause.

- Josh Triplett


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Glenn Maynard]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:40:55PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > It is pretty hard for me to think of a function that is usable on its
> > > own, useful enough to merit reuse in another project, and too large or
> > > subtle to be rewritten rather than deal with a patch-clause license.
> > 
> > So you're saying that since it's possible to rewrite code on your own,
> > patch clause licenses are free?  That sounds like an argument that code
> > reuse isn't really all that important.
> 
> I am saying that it is hard for me to imagine a case where reuse of
> patch-claused software is a major impediment to getting the work done.

This is a rephrasing of "code reuse isn't really all that important".

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Michael Poole]

Glenn Maynard writes:

> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 10:21:18PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > If I'm reusing a function from one project with a patch clause, sure.  I
> > > can distribute my entire project as a patch against the project whose
> > > code I'm reusing.  That's hardly reasonable.  It also prohibits me from
> > > using public CVS for my project, since that would perform distribution
> > > of the modified reused code in a form other than a patch against the
> > > original.
> > 
> > It is pretty hard for me to think of a function that is usable on its
> > own, useful enough to merit reuse in another project, and too large or
> > subtle to be rewritten rather than deal with a patch-clause license.
> 
> So you're saying that since it's possible to rewrite code on your own,
> patch clause licenses are free?  That sounds like an argument that code
> reuse isn't really all that important.

I am saying that it is hard for me to imagine a case where reuse of
patch-claused software is a major impediment to getting the work done.
There are works under patch-clause licenses that are cul-de-sacs in
the free software world, and patch-clause licenses should be (and are)
generally discouraged.  However, unless there is a noticeable uptick
in works that use those licenses, I think declaring those works
non-free would be a net loss in giving users the ability to freely
modify and share software.

Michael Poole


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Glenn Maynard]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 10:21:18PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > If I'm reusing a function from one project with a patch clause, sure.  I
> > can distribute my entire project as a patch against the project whose
> > code I'm reusing.  That's hardly reasonable.  It also prohibits me from
> > using public CVS for my project, since that would perform distribution
> > of the modified reused code in a form other than a patch against the
> > original.
> 
> It is pretty hard for me to think of a function that is usable on its
> own, useful enough to merit reuse in another project, and too large or
> subtle to be rewritten rather than deal with a patch-clause license.

So you're saying that since it's possible to rewrite code on your own,
patch clause licenses are free?  That sounds like an argument that code
reuse isn't really all that important.

If you're stuck on "function", then take any other unit of code; "set of
functions", "class heirarchies", etc, and remember that in actively-
developed code, code gets shuffled around, refactored, files are merged
and split apart, and you'll easily end up with even single functions
with some code that originated from one project, and other code from
another.

FWIW, good audio resamplers and MMX-optimized color space converters come
to mind as things that I've wanted permissively-licensed implementations
for a long time.  In the former case, writing a fast, reasonable-quality
polyphase resampler is well above my skill at that sort of thing.  The
latter, despite not being very much code, is simply such a PITA that I
havn't been able to convince myself to implement it.  If a project with
a patch clause had these, I couldn't reuse it; personal licensing requirements
aside, all of the code ends up in SF CVS, and merely committing it with
even simple changes to make it fit the project would violate the license.

> If that worst case is as rare as I think it is, is it noticably worse
> than the GPL's effective requirement to keep DVDs full of source code
> on-hand at expos?

I'd qualify that as "annoying", not as "showstopper to code reuse".

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Glenn Maynard]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:21:14AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively
> horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But
> deciding that they're not free any more would involve altering our
> standards of freedom, and I don't see any way that we can reasonably do
> that.

It's disappointing, then, that Debian is so fixed in stone that it's
incapable of correcting its mistakes.

In reality, I believe patch clauses are simply an anomaly that nobody has
tried to fix, and that Debian's standards of freedom are actually well
above them.  The alternative conclusion is that Debian doesn't consider
freedom to reuse code significant, and I don't really think that's the case.
(In any case, not being a DD, I'm certainly in no position to attempt to
fix it, beyond bringing it up on d-l once or twice a year.)

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Michael Poole]

Glenn Maynard writes:

> > > (On the same note, the patch exception in DFSG#4 has got to go; patch
> > > clauses prohibit code reuse entirely.  Some day ...)
> > 
> > Patch clauses only prohibit code reuse if your build system is
> > insufficiently complicated.
> 
> If I'm reusing a function from one project with a patch clause, sure.  I
> can distribute my entire project as a patch against the project whose
> code I'm reusing.  That's hardly reasonable.  It also prohibits me from
> using public CVS for my project, since that would perform distribution
> of the modified reused code in a form other than a patch against the
> original.

It is pretty hard for me to think of a function that is usable on its
own, useful enough to merit reuse in another project, and too large or
subtle to be rewritten rather than deal with a patch-clause license.
If that worst case is as rare as I think it is, is it noticably worse
than the GPL's effective requirement to keep DVDs full of source code
on-hand at expos?

Michael Poole


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Matthew Garrett]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I also don't understand why anyone would actually want to defend patch
> clauses.  There are very few of them left, so I don't think there's much
> of that "don't want my pet package declared non-free" agenda going on,
> and it seems like an obviously unreasonable hurdle to reuse.  It seems
> like a compromise whose time has passed.

I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively
horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But
deciding that they're not free any more would involve altering our
standards of freedom, and I don't see any way that we can reasonably do
that.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:56:14PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Should the Debian project make a stink anyway?  Only if you also want to
> > make a stink about the LGPL, the X license, and every non-copyleft
> > license, because all permit a derivative work to add something like the
> > Affero clause.

> There's a wide difference.  The GPLv3 is explicitly making a statement:
> "these restrictions are acceptable".  Permissive licenses merely say "I
> don't care".  It implies that the FSF considers such restrictions free,
> and either hasn't considered, or doesn't care, about the legitimate
> applications that it implicitly prohibits.

> I don't think anybody is claiming this license exception is non-free in
> and of itself (if I have, it was in error), but that doesn't make it not
> damaging.

But in that case, you might find it more fruitful to discuss this clause
with the FSF itself rather than with debian-legal.

Cheers,
-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Glenn Maynard]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 02:37:15AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The fact that they claim the Affero license is free didn't suggest that
> to you already?

Personally, I stopped paying attention to what they claim is free and
non-free when they called the GFDL free.  I just expect people to go
"hey, the GPL itself says it's OK; it must be a good thing, and it
doesn't cause GPL-incompatibility anymore, let's do it!"

> > (On the same note, the patch exception in DFSG#4 has got to go; patch
> > clauses prohibit code reuse entirely.  Some day ...)
> 
> Patch clauses only prohibit code reuse if your build system is
> insufficiently complicated.

If I'm reusing a function from one project with a patch clause, sure.  I
can distribute my entire project as a patch against the project whose
code I'm reusing.  That's hardly reasonable.  It also prohibits me from
using public CVS for my project, since that would perform distribution
of the modified reused code in a form other than a patch against the
original.

If I'm reusing two functions from two or more patch-clause projects, it
becomes much worse.

Patch clauses assume that the only type of modification anyone would ever
want to do to a work is to change the original (eg. the bug fix, feature
addition variety), ignoring the practice of pulling out code from one
project and putting it in another.

I also don't understand why anyone would actually want to defend patch
clauses.  There are very few of them left, so I don't think there's much
of that "don't want my pet package declared non-free" agenda going on,
and it seems like an obviously unreasonable hurdle to reuse.  It seems
like a compromise whose time has passed.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Don Armstrong]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (On the same note, the patch exception in DFSG#4 has got to go;
> > patch clauses prohibit code reuse entirely. Some day ...)
> 
> Patch clauses only prohibit code reuse if your build system is
> insufficiently complicated.

And you are willing to contain an entire copy of the codebase from
which you are extracting. [Unless the patch clause is per-file...]


Don Armstrong

-- 
My spelling ability, or rather the lack thereof, is one of the wonders
of the modern world.

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Matthew Garrett]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> There's a wide difference.  The GPLv3 is explicitly making a statement:
> "these restrictions are acceptable".  Permissive licenses merely say "I
> don't care".  It implies that the FSF considers such restrictions free,
> and either hasn't considered, or doesn't care, about the legitimate
> applications that it implicitly prohibits.

The fact that they claim the Affero license is free didn't suggest that
to you already?

> (On the same note, the patch exception in DFSG#4 has got to go; patch
> clauses prohibit code reuse entirely.  Some day ...)

Patch clauses only prohibit code reuse if your build system is
insufficiently complicated.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Glenn Maynard]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:10:38PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> All these objections from Debian folks, and no one has yet noticed the
> irony that the type of clause in question (the Affero language) has been
> championed by the man who wrote the DFSG, Bruce Perens.  Bruce repeatedly
> called the ability to "publicly perform" a work derived from a GPLed work,
> but not make the changes public, was a terrible loophole that had to be
> fixed, and promised to lobby RMS to fix it.

After the ironies surrounding the GFDL and the FSF, I'm beginning to
become desensitized ...

> Should the Debian project make a stink anyway?  Only if you also want to
> make a stink about the LGPL, the X license, and every non-copyleft
> license, because all permit a derivative work to add something like the
> Affero clause.

There's a wide difference.  The GPLv3 is explicitly making a statement:
"these restrictions are acceptable".  Permissive licenses merely say "I
don't care".  It implies that the FSF considers such restrictions free,
and either hasn't considered, or doesn't care, about the legitimate
applications that it implicitly prohibits.

I don't think anybody is claiming this license exception is non-free in
and of itself (if I have, it was in error), but that doesn't make it not
damaging.

> Too many developers of licenses seem to picture users making small
> changes, instead of creating mashups that take bits of many programs to
> make new ones.

Indeed, that's exactly the problem with this type of restriction; it
assumes people aren't going to reuse bits of their code in ways entirely
different from what they used it for.  It makes it impossible to reuse
useful bits from a networked application inside a non-networked application.
If the FSF considers it free, I have to wonder whether they consider code
reuse to be important at all.

(On the same note, the patch exception in DFSG#4 has got to go; patch
clauses prohibit code reuse entirely.  Some day ...)

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Joe Buck]

Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I think you're the third person to say something along those lines: "be
> thankful, it could be a lot worse".  It's still endorsing an extremely
> onerous class of restriction, implying that it's acceptable, helpful,
> and that the classes of application screwed over by it is unimportant.
> It's discouraging that people are thankful that's "all it is" ...

Steve Langasek wrote:
> I'm thankful that it's not *built into* the license in such a way that
> everything released under GPLv3 will have this issue.  The FSF had a hard
> job of balancing quite a few disparate interests; it's to be expected that
> the resulting license would allow people to use it in some ways that Debian
> considers non-free, the good news is if it can also still be applied in ways
> that *are* free.

All these objections from Debian folks, and no one has yet noticed the
irony that the type of clause in question (the Affero language) has been
championed by the man who wrote the DFSG, Bruce Perens.  Bruce repeatedly
called the ability to "publicly perform" a work derived from a GPLed work,
but not make the changes public, was a terrible loophole that had to be
fixed, and promised to lobby RMS to fix it.

(Affero clause = restriction requiring a facility to download source code
over the network).

That said, I'm glad that GPL v3 is not forcing this restriction into the
license; it has major problems.  If I want a little bit of a large program
that has an Affero clause, and I want to use that bit in another program
that does not speak any network protocol, it appears I cannot do so
without violating the license.  Adding a way to fix this would create a
loophole that would let hackers get around the language, so it basically
means that all derivative works have to be able to serve their own source
code over the net.  

Should the Debian project make a stink anyway?  Only if you also want to
make a stink about the LGPL, the X license, and every non-copyleft
license, because all permit a derivative work to add something like the
Affero clause.

Too many developers of licenses seem to picture users making small
changes, instead of creating mashups that take bits of many programs to
make new ones.  Free software licenses have to support that, and that's
one of the major difficulties of the GFDL even if the three major
objections Debian has made to it are fixed: sometimes you want to move
large chunks of program source code into documentation (especially for
class libraries) and license clashes are a problem.  One of the nicest
things about GPL v3 was the effort that was made to make more licenses
compatible with the GPL.  They pretty much had to do this by allowing
certain types of extra restrictions to be added.  Debian can call some
types of restrictions non-free, of course.








-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]