Re: Anal-ness
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IANAL, but according to Section 117, Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs, you *can* make derivative works for your own use: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or Making a derivative work is not an essential step in the utilization of a computer program. I repeat: IANAL. But "essential" means "necessary", so one should be able to make any necessary modifications. Frivilous modifications would be prohibited. By any reasonable interpretation, a "big DNS" patch is "essential" to making qmail work under certain conditions. That clause is covering making an in-memory copy of a program so as to be able to execute it. That's your interpretation--and it may even reflect the rationale behind the provision, but the law itself makes no mention of in-memory copies. "Essential step" says pretty clearly, to me at least, that if you don't have to do it in order to use the computer program in the manner it was intended to be used, you don't have a right to do it. The law also says nothing about the intended use of the program. -Dave
Re: Anal-ness
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Cunningham writes: Would this license also prohibit me from modifying the source for my own personal use (not for redistribution?) It's complicated. According to US copyright law, once you have a copy, it is yours to dispose of as you wish. Which does not include the right to make derivative works, even if you don't redistribute them, by my reading of the actual U.S. copyright statute. Anyone in the U.S. who's curious should really read the actual law on URL:http://www.loc.gov/copyright/. IANAL, but according to Section 117, Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs, you *can* make derivative works for your own use: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or ... If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. -Dave
Re: Anal-ness
Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IANAL, but according to Section 117, Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs, you *can* make derivative works for your own use: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or Making a derivative work is not an essential step in the utilization of a computer program. That clause is covering making an in-memory copy of a program so as to be able to execute it. "Essential step" says pretty clearly, to me at least, that if you don't have to do it in order to use the computer program in the manner it was intended to be used, you don't have a right to do it. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Re: Anal-ness
Would this license also prohibit me from modifying the source for my own personal use (not for redistribution?) - Original Message - From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2000 11:23 PM Subject: Re: Anal-ness Harald Hanche-Olsen writes: + "I Haddenough" [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | I mean, shit, he rattles cages with the gov't over krypto, but he | won't open source his code? Eh? Qmail isn't open source? No. An OSI-approved Open Source license gives recipients of the code the freedom to redistribute modified binaries. Without that freedom, your software isn't OSI Certified Open Source. And RMS (Richard M. Stallman) has become much less strident over the years. If asked, I'm sure he would praise Dan Bernstein for giving us the freedom to download the source of qmail and the freedom to redistribute unmodified binaries. But he wouldn't call qmail free software for the same reason OSI would refuse to certify qmail as Open Source. That one essential freedom is missing. Dan has stated his reasons for denying us that freedom. I disagree with him, but as Linus Torvalds has said many a time, "He who writes the code picks the license." -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
Re: Anal-ness
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 02:39:40AM -0800, David Cunningham wrote: Would this license also prohibit me from modifying the source for my own personal use (not for redistribution?) No, just like any other license can't prohibit you: http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html Interesting reading. Neil -- "The percentage of users running Windows NT Workstation 4.0 whose PCs stopped working more than once a month was less than half that of Windows 95 users." -- microsoft.com/ntworkstation/overview/Reliability/Highest.asp
Re: Anal-ness
On Sun, 2 Jan 2000 05:42:53 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 02:39:40AM -0800, David Cunningham wrote: Would this license also prohibit me from modifying the source for my own personal use (not for redistribution?) No, just like any other license can't prohibit you: http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html Interesting reading. Neil Anyone else who's interested and hasn't already, check out these urls. http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail/var-qmail.html cheers, -- Marek Narkiewicz, Webmaster Intercreations Reply to -marek @ intercreations . com- "Dogs are everywhere" Pulp Dogs are Everywhere
Re: Anal-ness
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: An OSI-approved Open Source license...And RMS (Richard M. Stallman) Note that many things are good and right, though unblessed by OSI and Richard "Source code for the workers or we shoot you" Stalin. Qmail's restrictions may be a "moral" downer for some. However, in a practical sense the restrictions don't prevent any desired use of qmail--except including a forked qmail in distributions. Note, too, that Dan seems to define "forking" differently than Eric Raymond. Changing the locations of vital files (usually for no particular reason) counts with Dan as a "fork". This may not matter for atomic programs, but for complete systems, like qmail, it does. As Dan pointed out before (and I hadn't realized till then), the author is responsible for supporting his product on every OS that runs it--RedHat and Debian, but also FreeBSD, Solaris, AIX, HP/UX and Unixware. Dan doesn't want to be ``faced with a support nightmare---forever'', and I can't say I blame him. Len.
Re: Anal-ness
David Cunningham writes: Would this license also prohibit me from modifying the source for my own personal use (not for redistribution?) It's complicated. According to US copyright law, once you have a copy, it is yours to dispose of as you wish. However, the software may have attempted to bind you to more restrictive terms using a shrink-wrap or click-through license. In some jurisdictions, shrink-wrap licenses are valid; in others, not. If the proposed UCITA passes in your state, then they will be valid. Dan just uses copyright law to protect qmail from unwanted redistribution, so the answer here is "no." He's got an extended explanation of software user's rights at http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
Re: Anal-ness
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: An OSI-approved Open Source license...And RMS (Richard M. Stallman) Note that many things are good and right, though unblessed by OSI and Richard "Source code for the workers or we shoot you" Stalin. I think you should listen more closely to what RMS actually says these days. Yes, he was rather strident in the past, but he has become much more reasonable these days. He's willing to work with anyone who will make their software more free than it currently is. But still, he won't sign a nondisclosure, and he won't use software which is not free (sometimes at great personal pain; e.g. he refrains from using proprietary voice recognition software even though he has bad RSI). Note, too, that Dan seems to define "forking" differently than Eric Raymond. Changing the locations of vital files (usually for no particular reason) The Debian standards put configuration files under /etc for a particular reason (this has *always* been the standard place for Unix configuration files). qmail does not, also for a particular reason. The reasons differ and one could argue which is the best reason, but because qmail is not open source, Dan wins the argument without need for persuasion. As Dan pointed out before (and I hadn't realized till then), the author is responsible for supporting his product on every OS that runs it--RedHat and Debian, but also FreeBSD, Solaris, AIX, HP/UX and Unixware. Right, and if someone changes the software, that person takes on the support nightmare. Dan could quite reasonably say "I will only help you if you are using an unpatched qmail." Dan doesn't want to be ``faced with a support nightmare---forever'', and I can't say I blame him. There are many patches available for qmail, and Dan can neither detect nor stop people from applying them, yet he does not seem to be living a support nightmare. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
Re: Anal-ness
Presumably there's nothing stopping anyone truly committed to GPL'ing
qmail from buying the copyright to it from Dan...other than Dan
setting too high a price. (No, I'm not planning to do this myself,
just pointing out that it is, presumably, possible.)
Having developed GPL'ed software myself, despite being generally
close to feeling that's the best way, I can see much validity to
Dan's reasons for protecting qmail as he does, given the nature
of that particular product.
I'm not sure I'd come to the same decision myself, though, since
I'd probably be in much more need of cooperative, "bazaar-style"
development to produce something like qmail than was Dan. But if
I did develop a product whose architecture, design, and implementation
I considered to be of a nature that permitted little outside
interference, and I believed it was the kind of product that would
appear to *invite* such interference from others, I might consider
using Dan's approach to ensure that, while it is somewhat free, it
isn't so free that people could corrupt it via changes that made
it seem "better" and thus were highly popular, but were, in fact,
wrong-headed. GPL'ing it later wouldn't be out of the question --
I might do it after the product had demonstrated a history of meeting
real needs effectively without being corrupted by others, so that,
after such corruption, it would be more clear where the problems
began (and therefore what caused them).
I do think, though, that some of these problems of corruption stem
from our not having a popular language in which to express certain
types of specification, and therefore no easy way to write, share,
and have automated tools check against top-level specifications for
components. E.g. just as "int foo(int, int);" is, in its own primitive
way, a top-level specification that distinctly disallows some hacker
adding "foo (0);" to some code as well as changing the definition of
foo to "float foo(float x, float y) {...}" without having to also
change the top-level specification -- an action that can be seen more
clearly as changing a public interface than the other two types of
change -- it would be helpful to have a common language in which we
could express requirements about timing, security, and so on. (I don't
mean an imperative language, of course; more of a specification language.)
With such a language in common use and widely appreciated, I think
some of the problems I, at least, worry about (and see happen) in
bazaar-style development (Linux, GCC, etc.) would be significantly
reduced, or at least eliminated. Heck, lots of email discussions
(and confusion over terminology that often occurs in them) would be
replaced by code containing, or even patches to, what I'm thinking
of as top-level specifications.
At that point -- when an author (designer) of a program can fairly
easily encapsulate critical specifications in a form that can be
automatically checked against the corresponding implementations --
there might be less resistance to letting random people participate
in improving certain types of products (e.g. OSS development of mission-
critical systems like mail transport agents). That is,
the author can more easily spot changes to the specifications
themselves, and the automated checking can help catch changes to
the implementations that violate the specifications. (Ideally,
automatic generation of implementation from specifications could
someday occur, but first things first.)
tq vm, (burley)
Re: Anal-ness
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Cunningham writes: Would this license also prohibit me from modifying the source for my own personal use (not for redistribution?) It's complicated. According to US copyright law, once you have a copy, it is yours to dispose of as you wish. Which does not include the right to make derivative works, even if you don't redistribute them, by my reading of the actual U.S. copyright statute. Anyone in the U.S. who's curious should really read the actual law on URL:http://www.loc.gov/copyright/. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Re: Anal-ness
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ...but because qmail is not open source, Dan wins the argument without need for persuasion. But I haven't heard of anything people can't accomplish with qmail, obeying Dan's license, except possibly ``Never have a /var directory on any of our machines.'' Which was my original point; concerns over Dan's licensing seem to be a tempest in a teapot. The in-depth answer goes into much more detail than is appropriate for either of these fora, however I can summarize it by noting that it's not enough for me to be forced to make the choices I would make if I had free will. I have to have free will itself. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
Re: Anal-ness
Right, and if someone changes the software, that person takes on the support nightmare. Dan could quite reasonably say "I will only help you if you are using an unpatched qmail." Dan doesn't want to be ``faced with a support nightmare---forever'', and I can't say I blame him. There are many patches available for qmail, and Dan can neither detect nor stop people from applying them, yet he does not seem to be living a support nightmare. Russ and all the great qmail supporters/patchers. Have you ever thought about something like a semi-forked version of qmail? I'm thinking about something like ezmlm-idx which is probably THE ezmlm everyone uses these days. Why can't we make something like this (qmail-whatever)? This way we can port all the exisiting patches that everyone is applying these days into one bit patch and later on supporters can work off this patch to add more feautres? Applying a lot of patches to qmail these days leads me into reading diffs manualy and adding them by hand. Is this idea anything good in your opinion? Kris
Re: Anal-ness
David Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote: Would this license also prohibit me from modifying the source for my own personal use (not for redistribution?) No. Also, distributing patches is allowed. -- Claus Andre Faerber http://www.faerber.muc.de PGP: ID=1024/527CADCD FP=12 20 49 F3 E1 04 9E 9E 25 56 69 A5 C6 A0 C9 DC
Anal-ness
Why is DJB so analy-retentive about licensing qmail? Why won't he just GPL it? Why does he insist on only allowing the most obtuse of Unix-geek documentation? Why are we at the mercy of D. Sill and R. Nelson ( God bless'em both) for any kind of intelligent feedback/doc? I mean, shit, he rattles cages with the gov't over krypto, but he won't open source his code? A case of Ivory Tower toxic syndrome? --lurker __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: Anal-ness
+ "I Haddenough" [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | I mean, shit, he rattles cages with the gov't over krypto, but he | won't open source his code? Eh? Qmail isn't open source? - Harald
Re: Anal-ness
I Haddenough writes: Why is DJB so analy-retentive about licensing qmail? Because he saw what happened to sendmail, and he fears it would happen to qmail. I've sought to allay those fears, but to no avail. It *is* a little embarrassing, me being a board member of the Open Source Initiative while deriving the bulk of my income from a non-open-source product. :) -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
Re: Anal-ness
Harald Hanche-Olsen writes: + "I Haddenough" [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | I mean, shit, he rattles cages with the gov't over krypto, but he | won't open source his code? Eh? Qmail isn't open source? No. An OSI-approved Open Source license gives recipients of the code the freedom to redistribute modified binaries. Without that freedom, your software isn't OSI Certified Open Source. And RMS (Richard M. Stallman) has become much less strident over the years. If asked, I'm sure he would praise Dan Bernstein for giving us the freedom to download the source of qmail and the freedom to redistribute unmodified binaries. But he wouldn't call qmail free software for the same reason OSI would refuse to certify qmail as Open Source. That one essential freedom is missing. Dan has stated his reasons for denying us that freedom. I disagree with him, but as Linus Torvalds has said many a time, "He who writes the code picks the license." -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
