about apt
After "sudo apt-get upgrade",I want to find how apt to acieve the package install,but when I encounter "PkgIterator Pkg(Cache,*I)",but I can not find the definition of "Pkg()". So anyone can help me? -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Announcing release 2.18 of irker
Nice. June 2 2016 10:02 PM, e...@thyrsus.com wrote: > Release 2.18 of irker is now available at: > > http://www.catb.org/~esr/irker > > Here are the most recent changes: > > Add the ability to set the notification-message template (Debian bug #824512) > > -- > shipper, acting for Eric S. Raymond > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Announcing release 2.18 of irker
Release 2.18 of irker is now available at: http://www.catb.org/~esr/irker Here are the most recent changes: Add the ability to set the notification-message template (Debian bug #824512) -- shipper, acting for Eric S. Raymond -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: the right to make a difference
Sam Bull schreef op 02-06-2016 16:33: On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 14:35 +0200, Xen wrote: The intention of the GPL is not really relevant. What happens is that the authors remain to have a say about how the product is used, if copyright is at play (at least the idea of copyright). Yes, and the authors stated they require you to allow redistribution of any modifications under the same conditions of the GPL. That is not any form of usage. That is a statement about ownership, basically. That goes against copyright. You do not own the modifications made by the other person, even if the next thing you say applies: This exactly has happened many times. If you take a proprietary piece of software, make changes and resell it (breaking the license agreement you received it under), then the original authors are perfectly in their rights to take away their livelihood, and this is no different with an GPL'd piece of software. This is because that other person would not have the rights to the original material. It is not because the original authors would not have the rights to the new material. In copyright you do not obtain rights to modified products, or at least, not to the work that is itself a substantial work eligible for copyright. So perhaps you may take away the right of another person to distribute; in that sense it is the same. However, in this case you do so because that other person is not willing to hand over ownership to you. Nobody is saying any amount of work is owed. But, any work done, is subject to the restrictions of the license. That is exactly the same thing. It comes down to ownership, dressed up in a different jacket. So there is not actually anything owed, you say, so then how can you (or anyone else) say there is to be a form of payment. And if there is not to be a form of payment, how can you then take possession of derivative products? There either has to be payment, or there has not to be payment. You cannot let payment in actual honesty depend on whether this "asset" ever arises. Some people do this thing, but they do this in complete liberty. They say "Pay me when you have the money" but that is dependent on trust and agreement and love, not on any contract. You cannot codify love, and willingness, in a contract. If people in GPL software actively started saying to people "You can use this software, but pay me back if you ever do any work on it" that would sound very weird. Suddenly a form of payment is required, this was never stated before. So what do you really want? And if you are clear on that, why not become clear on it in writing as well? State your intentions expressly, so that people can also object to it if they want. If you started saying that, people might think twice before actually using it or becoming a user of it. Suddenly it would become clear that the product is not free, that the person is now actually in debt, and that that person might at some later time be held hostage to it if he or she does decide to do anything creative with the work. Stated in such clear terms, you would receive a backlash, and if you had done so from the beginning, people would probably have started looking from alternatives. Such a new thought yes, I know. You would not have gained the traction you have now, if you actually had been clear about everything, and not just in technical license terms, but also in human terms and what it really means. The taking of all work for all eternity is simply a form of hostage taking. That is like saying you sign a license deal with a record company, but the license states that you can never go to another company ever after; you are bound to it for all eternity. No it's like saying you sign a deal with a record company, who take copyright of the songs you produce while there. After leaving the record company, you can't re-publish your old songs, or use them as the basis to create new songs, without permission from the record company. That is how copyright works. But now the record company is the original GPL project, and there are (in the GPL world) no none-GPL projects. And you have an agreement with every copyright holder for the lifetime of your person, or the lifetime of that project, which is really the same thing. So "while being there" is for all eternity as long as you keep using that software. So what is saying you should have access to the work? Well everyone has, doesn't it? No, anyone who has accepted the license and chosen to download the code has access. It's not like you picked up an apple from a public tree. Incorrect. Everyone has access. There does need to be done anything difficult, strange, or license-accepting in order to download a copy. That is an illusion you make up. You can download a copy without accepting the license. I just don't think "the GPL should be enforced" follows from what you say. That should or would only follow if you co
Ubuntu (Server) Installer and VM awareness; namely Hyper-V
I run a number of Ubuntu VMs under Hyper-V and it's led me to have a few (minor) issues and requests for future releases. Here's a short list: *Partitioning:* MS's best practices for Linux on HyperV[1] recommend a few specific options for filesystems: - ext4 rather than ext3 (it's more space-efficient in conjunction with .vhdx files) - mkfs.ext4 –G 4096 [...] as options It's currently not particularly easy to do this in the installer: You can't directly set options to mkfs.ext4; even if you could, I suspect most users are unaware of the best practices document and wouldn't set them anyways. Additionally, there's no good opportunity to format partitions manually after the installer writes the partition table to disk (as it immediately copies over some files). Right now, my "easy" solution is to allow the installer to write the partition table, then reset the VM and manually reformat all of the ext4 partitions in question. The complexity of this approach increases drastically if using LVM or encryption (though encrypted filesystems in a VM is of dubious usefulness when the contents of the VM's RAM might be written to the host's disk). In a perfect world, an installer running under Hyper-V would detect it (trivially done with `dmesg | grep HyperV`. though the exact pattern should be fine-tuned) and ask the user if they want to apply the relevant options during partitioning. Likewise is presumably true for running under VMWare/Virtualbox/xen/kvm/qemu/etc, though the optimal options for each may vary. *Packages:* A number of the default packages that ubuntu-standard/ubuntu-server depend on don't make a lot of sense on a VM; some that do aren't installed by default. IMHO ubuntu-server-vm/ubuntu-standard-vm metapackages or some other reorganization of those packagse might make sense. Some notable instances: - crda and iw relate to wireless devices, which VMs don't have. - laptop-detect (unless it has a means of telling if a VM is running on a laptop and invoking appropriate power-saving measures, but that seems finnicky) - linux-*-generic should be replaced by linux-*-virtual in most cases. - Packages like lvm2 (and its dependencies) and dmeventd/dmraid/dmsetup are less useful on VMs where fault tolerance is likely to be handled on the host and resizing disks is more a case of "resize VHD on host, then grow partition on guest".. - Disk encryption on VMs may cause a false sense of security since decryption keys (and the decrypted data) live in memory, which means it may also hit the host's filesystem in cases where the VM is snapshotted or otherwise saved. [1] https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn720239.aspx -- Daniel -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: the right to make a difference
Thank you Sam for yet again wading thru all of these misconceptions about the GPL and copyright licenses. It really is very clear. The GPL allows people to modify the software ONLY if they agree to the conditions of the license, just like any other copyright holder does when they LICENSE software. The license is the only thing that allows more than 'fair use'. Grsecurity is welcome to work on anything they like, or not. But if they want to modify and redistribute the Linux kernel, they need to abide by the GPLv2, which requires allowing free redistribution of their modifications. Note that they aren't just offering a driver or some sort of add-on or plugin. Their latest "test" patch at https://grsecurity.net/test/grsecurity-3.1-4.5.5-201605291201.patch modifies over 3000 distinct files in the kernel. But really, this discussion about copyright and license philosophy clearly doesn't belong here. There is tons about it to read online, and discussions can go to the Open Source Initiative "License Discuss" list: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/ among others. Also see this page for more information and links: http://www.fsf.org/licensing I found it helpful to get the initial notice of complaints about Grsecurity, which seems relevant to Ubuntu in a variety of indirect ways. But unless there is something else particularly relevant to Ubuntu about that, I'd ask people to find the more appropriate venues for the conversation. Cheers, Neal McBurnett http://neal.mcburnett.org/ On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 03:33:59PM +0100, Sam Bull wrote: > On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 14:35 +0200, Xen wrote: > > The intention of the GPL is not really relevant. > > > > What happens is that the authors remain to have a say about how the > > product is used, if copyright is at play (at least the idea of > > copyright). > > Yes, and the authors stated they require you to allow redistribution of > any modifications under the same conditions of the GPL. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
about apt
After "sudo apt-get upgrade",I want to find how apt to acieve the package install,but when I encounter "PkgIterator Pkg(Cache,*I)",but I can not find the definition of "Pkg()". So anyone can help me? yan...@iscas.ac.cn -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from redistributing source code
On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 13:54 +0200, Xen wrote: > Because they never asked for payment or set any conditions for access > to > their work. Yes they did, the GPL is the set of conditions they made for access to their work. > If a book is in my hands, a vendor no longer has the ability to > direct > what I should be able to do with it. This is just common sense. No, the vendor doesn't have any further ability to control what you do with it (the vendor does not own the copyright). But, the author/publisher (whoever owns the copyright) of that book DOES have an ability to control what you do with it. If it is full rights reserved, then you do NOT have permission to make copies or modifications of the book and then redistribute them. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: the right to make a difference
On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 14:35 +0200, Xen wrote: > The intention of the GPL is not really relevant. > > What happens is that the authors remain to have a say about how the > product is used, if copyright is at play (at least the idea of > copyright). Yes, and the authors stated they require you to allow redistribution of any modifications under the same conditions of the GPL. > Now in actual effect that is what would happen. The person doing the > work would see his livelihood taken away by "thieves" and his added > value would cease to be any added value; as such the whole idea and > reason for copyright would cease to exist; it is contradictory in > terms. This exactly has happened many times. If you take a proprietary piece of software, make changes and resell it (breaking the license agreement you received it under), then the original authors are perfectly in their rights to take away their livelihood, and this is no different with an GPL'd piece of software. > Does the owner of the road also own the car? No, but he gets to decide what cars to allow on the road, and under what conditions they are allowed. > > Saying that nothing is owed and that there is no agreement, would > > suggest that after buying a proprietary piece of software, I can > > now > > modify it and resell it to other people, despite this being against > > the > > intention of the author. > Nothing monetary is owed, and therefore not any amount of work > either. > After all, in any such agreement, it would not depend on whether the > work was actually done, you cannot in advance claim possession of > all > work done by anyone. Nobody is saying any amount of work is owed. But, any work done, is subject to the restrictions of the license. > The taking of all work for all eternity is simply a form of hostage > taking. That is like saying you sign a license deal with a record > company, but the license states that you can never go to another > company > ever after; you are bound to it for all eternity. No it's like saying you sign a deal with a record company, who take copyright of the songs you produce while there. After leaving the record company, you can't re-publish your old songs, or use them as the basis to create new songs, without permission from the record company. That is how copyright works. > So what is saying you should have access to the work? Well everyone > has, doesn't it? No, anyone who has accepted the license and chosen to download the code has access. It's not like you picked up an apple from a public tree. > I just don't think "the GPL should be enforced" follows from what > you > say. That should or would only follow if you consider the GPL holy > in > any sense. In actual copyright law, the /more/ changes something > has, > the /more/ it is an original work, or substantial work, and the more > substantial your changes, you have more access to a copyright of > your > own. And the more value it adds, the less it will be seen just as a > copy, or modification. It will be seen as an addition. Just because you have copyright on your own changes, doesn't change the conditions of the original work, unless it is such a small amount that it can be considered fair use. > and pretty much "public domain or at least common infrastructure" So, anybody that has access to Windows or Word, they are allowed to redistribute and resell copies? Because, they must be also be big enough to be considered "public domain or at least common infrastructure". Ultimately, it seems to me, that most of your arguments are arguing that copyright law doesn't exist at all. It seems you are telling me, that as soon as someone has a copy of any piece of work, they are free to do anything they want with it. So, what do you think copyright is? p.s. Please try to keep replies a little shorter than an entire essay, otherwise they will never be read in full. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: the right to make a difference
Sam Bull schreef op 02-06-2016 13:36: On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 12:31 +0200, Xen wrote: > So I think the unfairness is very much there now. Spengler is now > actually getting something for nothing, where before he was not, > and > the whole intention of many of the contributors to linux has been > subverted. Untrue. There was no before. Linux was already available to him. It was given away for free. Thank you for your response. It is very meaningful to me. You seem to repeatedly suggest that nothing is owed to the kernel developers and that it was given away with no requirements. But, the kernel is not simply given away, it is distributed under the GPL, and as already mentioned the intention of the GPL is that changes to the project by other developers are shared under the same conditions, so that the changes might be incorporated back into the original project or used by others. If somebody does not want to agree to these terms, then they are welcome to find an alternative (e.g. Apple used the BSD kernel). The intention of the GPL is not really relevant. What happens is that the authors remain to have a say about how the product is used, if copyright is at play (at least the idea of copyright). I don't think you can really embed a form of monetary compensation within a copyright license itself. Normally when you sell something, it has license terms, but the terms themselves do not describe the contract; hence a license alone cannot constitute a contract for monetary exchange, or anything else. Explicitly, the terms do not state that the intent is for the original author to have copyright on your work and if they did the thing would probably be deemed illegal by all courts. This is because a derivative work can in itself be copyrighted (at least the work you have done yourself, which must be a substantial work) and so a free transference of copyright to another party would never work. Now in actual effect that is what would happen. The person doing the work would see his livelihood taken away by "thieves" and his added value would cease to be any added value; as such the whole idea and reason for copyright would cease to exist; it is contradictory in terms. So what I am saying is that what the new author owns the original author, is that if the original author's interests are threatened, that person can have a say in it. Now the question becomes what those interests are. GPL is really irrelevant in that sense. If you can make a case that those interests imply the free access to and integration of any additional work done by other parties free of charge, then you may have a point. Then, when that point is made, the GPL agrees with that. If that point can never pass, then the GPL can never be legal. But you MUST explicitly mention and make available the idea that this contract forms a valid basis for interaction, and is a valid way to "take back" seeing as that your structural component (the kernel) already exists everywhere, and that module (it is not a module) (I think) it almost like a car on a road. Does the owner of the road also own the car? So if the original authors really have an actual interest that can be recognised, then yes. But this interest must first be stipulated for the terms themselves to have any merit. In pretty much every copyright case I have seen (not many now) the courts decided based on real interests, not simply license terms. There would be two points: 1. derivative work 2. fair use. Saying that nothing is owed and that there is no agreement, would suggest that after buying a proprietary piece of software, I can now modify it and resell it to other people, despite this being against the intention of the author. Nothing monetary is owed, and therefore not any amount of work either. After all, in any such agreement, it would not depend on whether the work was actually done, you cannot in advance claim possession of all work done by anyone. Even if you wanted it to have some merit, you would still need to stipulate any exact or moderately exact agreed upon exchange in advance. The taking of all work for all eternity is simply a form of hostage taking. That is like saying you sign a license deal with a record company, but the license states that you can never go to another company ever after; you are bound to it for all eternity. So what is saying you should have access to the work? Well everyone has, doesn't it? Some implicit agreement that is in itself rather questionable to pretty much everyone, especially if you characterize it like this (which is the truth, really) is not going to be very strong if and when the product is being mass distributed free of charge, any sense of exclusivity is non-existent, and if you are only using it not to maintain copyright, or to maintain copyright on the premise of wanting to control your real immediate interests (such as those mentioned before) but only to acquire
Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from redistributing source code
concernedfoss...@teknik.io schreef op 02-06-2016 0:22: June 1 2016 4:27 PM, "Xen" wrote: concernedfoss...@teknik.io schreef op 01-06-2016 16:15: He has frustrated the purpose of the agreement (the grant) he had with the original licensor, and thus the grant fails. In other words: he has violated the license. So what do you want? For him to go out of business? Do you want free access to his work? Which is it? It doesn't matter what I want, but I ask: You clearly want something. Your actions do not come out of their own. Pure ideology is no reason to do anything, there has to be a reward in it for you too. General "being offended" by something is no reason to attack it; there has to be a reason that will actually yield you something in person, whether that is a better ecosystem, a more attuned lifestyle, being in agreement with your own self, or actual rewards in the world directly. He had open access to a much greater work, why does it bother you if those whom he took the larger work from might want access to whatever changes he had made to their work and has distributed to others; or simply that the others to whom the changes have been distributed be able to contribute it back to they whom have originated the original work in the first place. Because they never asked for payment or set any conditions for access to their work. If a book is in my hands, a vendor no longer has the ability to direct what I should be able to do with it. This is just common sense. You cannot have license terms for a hammer that sense I cannot hammer nails with it only sold by a certain vendor, or not sold by others. If you want something in return, be honest up front. Don't shackle people with demands that they cannot do certain things with it after you have given them it for free. It doesn't work, and it is not human style. It doesn't agree with humans. Humans want freedom. You want something that cannot be. It is really the same as those licenses by softwarevendors alike, in the commercial world. I don't care what they say, and I don't care what you say. You consider it acting in bad faith. I consider it grievous assault to require me to read a license agreement that is clearly not meant to be read in the first place. Perhaps you know the book the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It is something of the same. The protagonist Arthur Dent is told his house is going to get destroyed, and the plans for it have been available in the city hall for months. He had been able to object to it if he wanted. When he goes to find it, he discovers that they are buried in a basement with a lock that doesn't really open. Writing licenses in ALL CAPS with relevant terms that are actually buried inside a load of nonsense that usually does not apply to anyone. So I don't care what you say, but according to you, I would have been acting in "bad faith" all my life. I only deal with humans, not computers that require a press of a button to install, regardless whether I have read anything or not. Just the presenting of some document to me, but allowing me to install it regardless of whether I agree or not, is not a form of statement on my part, but it is a form of statement on your part that it is free for me to install. "By using this software you have agreed to the terms you can find if you dig really deep." No I did not. It requires a lawyer to understand those terms, hence, a user cannot even be expected to know how to deal with it. If you wrote it in plain language, you might have a case. But I am not listening to "screaming people" that don't know how to write in a normal way. Today a vendor is trying to make me pay basically six months of rent they had said in advance would be free. They will find it in front of a court that will dismiss it. Guaranteed. These days many vendors try to force you to read it (you have to scroll down to the bottom): you think that actually works? If something is dysfunctional to begin with, then why do you do it? Google these days now describes in plain language what has actually changed, now it has some merit. "It is in the small print". Yeah. But courts still hold you to a standard of reasonability and something that could be considered "just requirement" (it would translate to "onredelijk bezwarend" -- that is the term they use here to say that something could not have been required of something). If something is onredelijk bezwarend, you did not need to do it because the other party made it too hard for you. Sure I will hold that, as I do myself, that if you intend to make money on it, or really distribute something as a way to have it be attributed to you, you will read those terms. But for general use, you don't. No one does. So of course mr. Spender knows the terms, and knows them really well, probably. But you already gave away the kernel for free and you gave it away for free to millions of people. No dis
Re: the right to make a difference
On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 12:31 +0200, Xen wrote: > > So I think the unfairness is very much there now. Spengler is now > > actually getting something for nothing, where before he was not, > > and > > the whole intention of many of the contributors to linux has been > > subverted. > Untrue. There was no before. Linux was already available to him. It > was given away for free. You seem to repeatedly suggest that nothing is owed to the kernel developers and that it was given away with no requirements. But, the kernel is not simply given away, it is distributed under the GPL, and as already mentioned the intention of the GPL is that changes to the project by other developers are shared under the same conditions, so that the changes might be incorporated back into the original project or used by others. If somebody does not want to agree to these terms, then they are welcome to find an alternative (e.g. Apple used the BSD kernel). Saying that nothing is owed and that there is no agreement, would suggest that after buying a proprietary piece of software, I can now modify it and resell it to other people, despite this being against the intention of the author. The main question appears to be about a legal loophole, in whether the work is considered a derivative when it can be distributed as a separate patch. I don't know what these patches are, but I imagine if they are mostly a set of self-contained files (like a module) it would not be considered a derivative, whereas if it involves significant changes to the kernel, then it would be considered a derivative, and the GPL should be enforced. Another question, nobody has asked: It sounds to me, like the developer is possibly accepting that the patches they are selling are licensed under the GPL, but saying that if they use their rights to redistribute them, they will not continue to sell them updates. So, if you consider the developer is allowing anybody to exercise their rights for the piece of software they have received and that the developer can choose not to sell a new version of software for any reason; is the threat enough to break the conditions of the GPL? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: the right to make a difference
concernedfoss...@teknik.io schreef op 01-06-2016 23:57: To my knowledge, the intention of most of those who license their work out under the GPL is essentially to recieve a different form of payment: Maybe that is a subverted reason now. I don't think that was so in the past. This is a rather ill scheme regardless. Rather than demanding a monetary reward upfront, the hope, and the license is the written vehicle for the possible fulfillment of that hope, is that the reward will be payed in labour. There is no guarantee that anyone will work on your product. You seem to assume that the advancement of the product is the only reason to do anything; ie. the only reward for the work you do, is getting more work done. That is like planting apple trees in the hopes of having more of them, but not actually for having apples. Maybe you say this is only the reason for the license, not for the work itself. Regardless, why should anyone be compelled to work for you? This reeks of free labour all the same. Free as in beer. Which is my common conception of how "volunteers" or "contributors" are treated in the Linux domain. They are treated as expendable, free labour. The expectation seems to be that they have already received their payment in the form of being able to use the product, but why then, work for it? This makes giving away the product in itself a disingenuous and insincere thing. From the viewpoint of someone else, Linux is free. There is no need for payment and you can do whatever you want with it. Including work on it. But, you do so out of your own volition, not to pay people you have never known and who never spoke to you, and who may never have treated you well. /Freedom/ is the reason to work on Linux for most, but many may be subverted by this new ideology. They don't work because they want to, but because they feel they have to (they are in debt). I don't know if you have ever seen cartoon images or alike of debtors. They are depicted with a ball around their foot; in chains. If debt is the reason to do anything, it is not a good reason. It does not speak of personal intentions, personal desire, personal wish, and personal creativity. You are basically saying that everyone is in debt when they use Linux. IE: Rights holder puts this work out free, under the expectation than any furthur work done on it will come back to him. I hope someone once told you that having expectations of people is not a very good thing. Expectations is what kills every loving relationship, and every time does. Every relationship starts out well until expectations pop up. Then people feel they have to make true on them (those of the other) and they start losing themselves, and they end up two people who our now both less than what they were before, instead of both more. This scheme you have here makes lesser people out of everyone, because they are no longer doing stuff they really want in any moment that they want it. They are not doing it /because/ they want to do it. It is very unfair for a licensee to then take pains to ensure that the additional labour, the work, never is returned to the original licensor. What makes you think it is fair to unilaterally, on your own, start out with an agreement with innumerable other people, who don't have a say in it? You think they have to agree with anything you want, even though they might not agree with it at all? So this whole "agreement" is not voluntary in the first place, and every time you (or someone else trying to do it) (or doing it) is trying to enforce that "agreement" through some license term. Based on copyright, a system which these people at the same time despise. This is no honest form of doing business in the first place. It is dishonesty at its heart. And then you speak of fairness. This is no way to treat people in the first place: you ask them what they want, before you start out with an agreement with them. In the linux world, I recall clearly, this was very much the stated /reason/ to use the GPL over the BSD license. That could be so. Still this is license talk. That doesn't mean it forms the basis of having any kind of license at all. When you are already talking licenses (technical terms) you have already left the realm of ideology; because, this license is going to be a platform depending on societal structures, and as such, it has to be amended to what can work given existing law. Then, it is always a lesser version of that you had in mind, because in your ideal world, you may not need, or have needed, to do so. We see how the FSF (apparently) gives very technical reasons for saying something is a derivative work, and when it is not. That law professor (I think) of the article you cited (or posted) clearly revealed how such technical terms have no merit to a court and how they subvert logical reasoning around derivative works. Boundaries of process space clearl
