Re: the FSF's definition of Free Software and its value for Debian
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:03:02PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: No, you could have broken into my computer and taken it. Oh. Somewhat far out, I think. But nevertheless... Then it should be harmless enough to ensure that the license can't be interpreted this way. But I don't think the GNU GPL needs to worry about authorized recipients versus unauthorized recipients. I don't think it does. I think it is counterintuitive to read the directly or indirectly as a restrictive phrasing. On the contrary, it is meant to be inclusive, pointing out explicitly that the rights granted can *not* be restricted to *direct* recipients only. I don't see what's unclear, ambiguous, or inefficient about saying the recipient and all third parties. -- G. Branden Robinson| There's nothing an agnostic can't Debian GNU/Linux | do if he doesn't know whether he [EMAIL PROTECTED] | believes in it or not. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Graham Chapman pgpfMP4f8Ex7c.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: QPL clause 3 is not DFSG-free
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 03:01:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches. The following restrictions apply to modifications: This restricts modifications to separate patch files. Furthermore, these restrictions attach to the mere act of modification, and not to distribution of modifications (or a modified version of the work). I think the condition applies only to distribution. Well, I don't think it does, necessarily. Clause 2 of the QPL says, You may copy and distribute the Software provided... Clause 4 of the QPL says, You may distribute machine-executable forms of the Software or machine-executable forms of modified versions of the Software, provided... Clause 5 of the QPL says, You may use the original or modified versions of the Software... Clause 6 of the QPL says, You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software... Clause 3 says, however, The following restrictions apply to modifications, not The following restrictions apply to modifications you distribute. Now, maybe the latter is what Trolltech *means*, but it's not what the license *says*. When we've got representatives of the FSF asserting that there is no fair use right to private modification because of the _Texaco_ case, I'd say the safe bet is to: 1) get clarification from the licensor; and 2) get the license clarified and ensure that it respects the fair use right to private modification. -- G. Branden Robinson| Life is what happens to you while Debian GNU/Linux | you're busy making other plans. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- John Lennon http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpdiXgCP7OJB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: QPL clause 3 is not DFSG-free
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 03:06:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the Software. This is fine, except that it attaches to modification and not distribution of modifications that do this. We should encourage licensors to be more clear about this issue, and not attempt to restrict activities that should be protected under Fair Use doctrines. Fair Use does *not* allow you unlimited rights to create derivative works. It might suck, but it just doesn't. Copyright law restricts copying and the preparation of derivative works, even if you don't distribute the derivatives. Fine, then I assert that any license, to be a Free license, must permit the licensee the unrestricted right to prepare derivative works of any nature (and copy and use those derived works). The distribution of those derived works is another matter entirely. So I think it's perfectly reasonable to read this license as saying nothing more than modifications, insofar as they are restricted under copyright law, can only be made under the following terms. I'm not saying it isn't reasonable to read the license that way, but I'd rather have a license that's crystal clear on the subject. Licenses have a tendency to be used and applied to works not created by the author of the license document itself. Those other people may not interpret the license in the same way. As long as the terms are themselves acceptible ones for free software licenses, we're fine. As long as we agree on what's acceptable for a Free Software license, yes. :) This is a problem. If you license your modifications under the QPL, you give the initial developer (often Trolltech AS) a special privilege that is not given to other parties, even if your modifications are so extensive and original that they merit independent copyright protection. (In fact, this special privilege is granted *only* in that case, for in situations where the modifications are so trivial that there is no copyrightable derived work, clause 3b is unnecessary. In the U.S., at least, the seed of copyright can find no root in trivial modifications[1]). Except the alleged discrimination (if it's really that) guarantees that your modifications will be available under the free license. So what? I don't understand how this point rebuts mine. So this isn't really much wilder than the BSD license, although it is kludgily expressed. The BSD license doesn't compel you to assign any rights whatsoever back to the initial developer, or to anyone else. I believe it is illegitimate and inimical freedom to grant special privileges in a license to a copyright holder that other receipients of a distributed work do not get, especially since the original copyright holder already has tons of rights that other receipients don't have. Except the right that the copyright holder gets is simply the right that *everyone* gets in this case. No, it's a special right reserved to the initial developer. This is unlike the GNU GPL, in which rights are only transmitted between distributor and distributee, or distributor and the whole world (all third parties). If we were to replace a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted with something else of value such as a payment of US $1,000 must be paid; the title to the modifier's automobile, if the modifier owns one, must be signed over; or a perpetual, non-retractable grant of permission to engage in sexual intercourse with (1) the modifier, if the modifier is female; (2) if the modifer is not female, the modifier's nearest female relative aged 18 years or greater must be extended, then we all would certainly reject such a requirement as DFSG-non-free...wouldn't we? I think the reason is that the non-exclusive royalty-free right is precisely what the GPL already requires you to give everyone who comes into possession of your changes. Right; the GNU GPL doesn't discriminate in favor of the initial developer, who is *presumably* (though, interestingly, not by definition) the copyright holder. In order to exercise your rights under clause 3 of the QPL, you have to give something to the initial developer. This sort of quid pro quo is not the way any other commonly-accepted Free Software license works. -- G. Branden Robinson|Somebody once asked me if I thought Debian GNU/Linux |sex was dirty. I said, It is if [EMAIL PROTECTED] |you're doing it right. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Woody Allen pgprNQSCRTlho.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OCAML QPL Issue
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 02:56:55PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: However, I hope we agree that QPL as it stands *is* DFSG-free. That is not, and has never been, my personal opinion. -- G. Branden Robinson|The errors of great men are Debian GNU/Linux |venerable because they are more [EMAIL PROTECTED] |fruitful than the truths of little http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |men. -- Friedrich Nietzsche pgpNDGuDXadUS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPLv3 / Affero / RPSL
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:39:23PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:41:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: authors special consideration. Furthermore, I think the most effective way -- perhaps the *only* effective way for our deprecation of such licenses to be more than just lip service is to reject them as violating the spirit of the DFSG, or if you'd rather, as violating Social Contract clause 1 even if the DFSG wasn't comprehensive enough to snag them. And no, I don't have any expectation that everyone else on this mailing list shares my opinion on this issue. I think you have a valid point; at the same time, we should have expressed it at the time Troll was drafting the current QPL. As you well know, the role of spokesman for Debian was arrogated by Joseph Carter, who failed to, as I recall, accurately convey to TrollTech the concerns about the QPL being expressed at the time. In fact, so far as I know we have no record of his correspondence with them on this issue. Now is, I think, too late to go back on that decision. There is value in being trusted. I think TrollTech sent a very strong message, and made a good move, when they decided to dual-license Qt under the QPL and the GPL. They were big enough to admit that they erred with Qt's licensing initially, and they did not lose the respect of the community. Indeed, KDE in particular continues to thrive. So why cannot we be big enough to admit that, if we have officially declared the QPL a DFSG-free license (a declaration of which I can find no evidence), that we erred, and that we recommend people follow TrollTech's example and dual-license their works under the QPL and GPL (with the footnote that many other DFSG-free licensing arrangements are possible, and they should feel free to contact us)? -- G. Branden Robinson| Human beings rarely imagine a god Debian GNU/Linux | that behaves any better than a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | spoiled child. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein pgprR4wFjlP9E.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ASP loophole - where is the line
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 05:44:29AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:48:04PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: That's sidestepping the issue. Now: In which of Mark's cases should Joe be forced to give his program to the upstrem author, Debian, the FSF, or the government? I don't see any problems with him being required to present it on request to some particular person/group in any of the cases, as long as the requests aren't unduly unreasonable. What does that mean? What's your definition of unduly unreasonable? Would you care to share some pet tests with us that would help us to better understand what you think of as unduly unresonable, versus the preferable (I suppose) duly unresonable? -- G. Branden Robinson| Don't use nuclear weapons to Debian GNU/Linux | troubleshoot faults. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- US Air Force Instruction 91-111 http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpg9utGlpcZW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Show So Far
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 08:17:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: It passes the written DFSG. So, you'd accept Thomas's tax return as DFSG-free, then? Not everything that passes the DFSG as written is free -- that's why they're guidelines, not a definition -- but I think it's fair for the null hypothesis to be satisfies the DFSG as written = free, I disagree. Every license should be scrutinized. The DFSG itself it just a set of tests we run against a license that enables us to easily dispose of many scenarios in which a license is not a Free Software license. The DFSG was motivated by *practical experience* with licenses that had been encountered in the wild by 1997. and expect people who want to read between the lines and add their pet tests to be the ones doing the justifying. Why the derogatory tone towards people who develop tests to measure a software license against the abstract notion of freedom? The DFSG itself is just such a set of pet tests, which happen to be primarily Bruce Perens's. -- G. Branden Robinson| The last Christian died on the Debian GNU/Linux | cross. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Friedrich Nietzsche http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpzN1sE4bb5R.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Standard non-copyleft free license?
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 07:02:55PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote: On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: Publicity rights are not within the scope of copyright law. The right to use people's names or likenesses to promote things is not assumed to attach to copyright licenses in the first place. I'd hope so, but you never know these days.[1] Well, if we're going to play cynic... These days, you're best off assuming that a copyright license doesn't even grant you the rights it says it does, thanks to recent legislation. It would be very unreasonable in the current climate to assume that you had rights not even hinted at in the license document. Regardless, their idea is that if you then used their names, it gives their lawyers an extra stick to beat you with, beyond just using the standard slander/libel laws. [Plus, they get to bring in the FBI to track you down.] License documents that succumb excessively to lawyer's desires to have many sticks with which to beat the licensee should be rejected as non-DFSG-free, because they don't promote freedom. Licenses that terrorize the licensee and discourage him or her from exercising the rights he or she should be able to expect from a Free Software license are not the sort of thing people should need to worry about coming from Debian main. -- G. Branden Robinson| Convictions are more dangerous Debian GNU/Linux | enemies of truth than lies. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Friedrich Nietzsche http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp657E7V1x5C.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: JpGraph License Question [From the author]
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 11:04:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: First, you need to decide whether you want to allow internal business use under your gratis license option. If not, there's no reason to talk more, because your licensing will never be DFSG-free then. Otherwise, the next thing to do is to revise the language on your web site to reflect that policy. Afterwards you should consider taking Edmund's advice and use the GPL instead of the QPL. This is not of immediate importance, because we do currently consider the QPL a DFSG-free license. However, recently there have been suggestions on debian-legal that this was the wrong decision, som it is possible that within the nearish future we will decide that QPL was never free after all and so start removing QPL-licensed software from Debian. As one of the people who does not recall the Debian Project ever making an official statement (or even an unofficial declaration) that the QPL was a DFSG-free license, and as a person who does not feel that the QPL is DFSG-free, I should offer my clarfication of the above. We won't necessarily be removing all QPL-licensed software from Debian even if we do decide that the QPL is DFSG-non-free, because a great deal -- perhaps even most -- of the QPL-licensed software distributed by Debian is dual-licensed under the GNU GPL. This is because the most prominent piece of QPLed software, the Qt Library from TrollTech AS of Norway, carries that dual license. As anyone who's tried to compile Qt from source knows, it's a large piece of work. :) My hypothesis is that so many people equate the QPL with Qt that when they saw the Qt library move into Debian main, they assumed that the QPL had been branded DFSG-free. In fact, the reason Qt was moved into Debian main was because it became dual-licensed under the GPL, which removed all ambiguity as to its DFSG-freeness, since the GNU GPL is practically universally regarded as a DFSG-free license. Anyway, I concur with rest of Henning's statement. I wish you the best of luck in wrestling with your licensing decisions (seldom a fun endeavor), and if you have any more questions on this subject that you think the Debian community can help you with, please don't hesitate to contact us. -- G. Branden Robinson| Reality is what refuses to go away Debian GNU/Linux | when I stop believing in it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Philip K. Dick http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp3dGJUu08e8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is LPPL + some additions DSFG free?
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 05:16:11PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: I wasn't sure about the LPPL issues; I remember some discussions in the last moths and searched, but I haven't found a conclusion in the archives... There hasn't been a conclusion; several people from those very long discussion about the LPPL have been privately working towards a new version of the LPPL that is designed to, among other things, alleviate Debian's concerns about the LPPL. These discussions are ongoing as of a week or so ago, though I admit I'm not directly involved in them (I'm merely in touch with people who are). The LPPL has not been branded DFSG-non-free and software licensed under its terms has not been pulled from the Debin archive because it would be rude to do so before the private discussions between Debian and LaTeX Project developers have reached some conclusion. From what I have heard there is reason to be confident that a mutually amicable arrangement will be reached, resulting in a new LPPL which unambiguously satisfies the DFSG. However, since I am not directly involved I cannot make any estimates as to a timeline on this arrangement. Since the LPPL is quite restrictive, I'm not sure whether the LPPL + upstream's additions can be seen as DFSG-free. The most recent of the (few) statements about the LPPL can be found at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/debian-legal-199911/msg00145.html However, the thread was not very exhausting, so I'm asking again. There have been much more recent statements about the LPPL than that. See, for example: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg7.html Discussion ran for literally months after that before it was taken offline by some of the main participants. It would be nice if answers are cc'ed to me since I'm not subscribed to d-legal. Part of the reason the discussion of the LPPL are so complex is because the LPPL is itself a complex license. The best way to a quick resolution for this particular issue is to re-license or dual-license the software under terms that are widely held to be DFSG-free already. In particular I recommend the MIT/X11 license, the 2-clause or 3-clause BSD licenses, or the GNU GPL. Of course, sometimes none of these licenses meet the needs of the developer. On the other hand, perhaps the GNU GPL might be a worthwhile dual license[1]; are there any users of the software in question that wouldn't be served *either* by the LPPL or by the GNU GPL? [1] I don't use the MIT/X11 or BSD licenses here because they might be seen as giving *too many* permissions. -- G. Branden Robinson|A celibate clergy is an especially Debian GNU/Linux |good idea, because it tends to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |suppress any hereditary propensity http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |toward fanaticism.-- Carl Sagan pgpGtsd7b3L60.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Show So Far
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 08:01:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 06:08:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: The GPL's source distribution requirement actually augments the freedom of the possessor of the code You say that like the possessor of the code is somehow special, but the user of the code, and the author of the code aren't. I don't find that remotely reasonable. The fundamental premise of free software is that copyright is an artificial limitation on what I can do whit a piece of software, and that I should be able to modify it and copy it. I don't think so; the fundamental premise of free software is: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor * The freedom to improve the program Historically, the only way you could access a program at all was to possess a copy of it, so it made sense to worry about how you could possess a copy, but not have those freedoms. These days, people use software they don't possess every day, in pretty significant ways. The reason that the possessor is special is that the only thing stopping the possessor from modifying or copying is the copyright law. No: that would be the reason that _copyright law_ is special, and seriously problematic. (It's not true: not having access to the source code does the same thing; and it assumes that you possess most of the software you use -- if you lease it, or only have remote access, it's not remotely relevant) (The four freedoms of the FSF spell out this basic premise more carefully; I don't mean to be setting up some different standard than that one.) You are though; you're starting from the means, not the ends, and thus artificially restricting the whole point. If copyright didn't exist, but you were blocked from hacking on Gnome primarily by trademark laws, by patents, by lack of access to compilers, by lack of access to information on how to make changes, or by men with clubs who come around and beat you until you're black and blue when you make changes, then the free software movement would be working out ways to correct those problems. Copyright is today's major issue, but it's not the fundamental issue. The user of the code, when that's different from the possessor, is often inhibited from copying or modifying by things *other* than just the copyright--importantly, his physical lack of access, among other things. Lack of access to the source code is the first problem they have. That's the point of closing the ASP loophole -- to get the source code out into the world. Maybe we can't get it directly to them, but if we can get it to them indirectly, then that's a win. You keep saying that, but it _is_ an imposition on freedom, and a very significant one. Just ask the folks who license their code under a BSDish license. In both these cases, the imposition is in the category of a genuine pain. But it's not an imposition on *freedom* (or rather, the imposition on *freedom* is negligible). I'm sorry, but that's not the case. _You_ might choose to disregard it, after analysing the situation and trading off the benefits against the drawbacks, but that does _not_ make the imposition negligible. You're well within your rights to think that the freedoms the GPL limits aren't valuable or important. That's fine and great. But they are important to a bunch of people, and it's a tradeoff that it's often necessary to carefully consider before making. Pretending that there's no tradeoff being made here and that therefore there's not only no precedent for tradeoffs but that they're a fundamentally bad thing is quite disingenuos. That you may not think my arguments prove the point is obvious, since we have a disagreement. But there's a difference between haven't made any arguments and we have a disagreement. What I mean by haven't made any arguments is that the things you've said simply don't make any sense unless you already hold your worldview. Distinguishing between possessors and users and claiming that the restrictions we currently allow don't affect freedom but that these just do isn't forming an argument, it's begging the question. It doesn't add any information, it just restates the original question. BTW: ``It is also acceptable for the license to require that, if you have distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you must send one.'' -- http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html (since 2002-02-01 at least, according to web.archive.org) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Dissident versus ASP
The Dissident test is equivalent to saying (or, at least, implies): You should never be forced to give your source changes (and/or rights to use/modify them) to anyone but the users of your program. We've established that you can't require someone who lets other people use a program, but who doesn't distribute copies of it normally, to give out copies of changes made to the source to any user who asks, too, since that'd require you to keep source available permanently and make it accessible, or maintain an out-of-band distribution mechanism, which are all overly impractical. Which is to say: You should never be forced to give your source changes (and/or rights to use/modify them) to people who merely use your program (but don't already receive copies). Together, those say that: If your program is not distributed to anyone, then the license cannot require you to distribute it to anyone (no matter how many people use it or for what purpose, etc). Which is to say that, if accepted, the Dissident test and the practical concerns we have about providing source over SMS and such, imply that no free license can ever close the ASP loophole. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!'' pgp6q4NpIuK1W.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Show So Far
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [030317 10:20]: I don't think so; the fundamental premise of free software is: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor * The freedom to improve the program Historically, the only way you could access a program at all was to possess a copy of it, so it made sense to worry about how you could possess a copy, but not have those freedoms. These days, people use software they don't possess every day, in pretty significant ways. sarkasm So why not require anyone running public available services on some computer to give anyone shell accounts, so that they can run the program for any purpose, and not limited through some user-interface? Or giving anyone the right to change every GPL-ecomerce system on the computer it is running, as those high prices really need an improvement? /sarkasm Having to distribute the source with the binary is already quite limiting freedom of the user. It's accepted, because distributing source together with the binary is a large but not overall large deal. (Anything going with the source is in the binary, too. Any algorith, password, secret in the source can be found in the binary, too. And no liability is added, as the program is distributed anyhow). And because it artificially limiting the freedom of those having the binary. ( As it is their computer, their area of control, where they can do anything and are only limited by the damn long time it needs to dis- and reassemble a program, if one is not used to it[1].) I know there is also the opinion around, that access to computers is a freedom and setting passwords is oppression. I'm of the opinion a person running a computer should have the freedom to control it. I'm strongly against any licence where setting up a firewall, a filtering proxy or making a local adaption will cause a breaking of law. That you may not think my arguments prove the point is obvious, since we have a disagreement. But there's a difference between haven't made any arguments and we have a disagreement. What I mean by haven't made any arguments is that the things you've said simply don't make any sense unless you already hold your worldview. Distinguishing between possessors and users and [...] The fundamental problem here is the question: What is a user?. This is in general a weak term. Consider many debian-documentation speaking of the person setting the system up as the user of Debian, while other documentation speaks of user as the person sitting before the computer after is set up. So the question is who is the user in the sense of the basic freedoms? Am I already a user of some system if I do a ping ip and get no response? What if I do a ssh ip and get a prompt for a password? Or if I start the sshd-daemon? Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
Re: QPL clause 3 is not DFSG-free
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches. The following restrictions apply to modifications: This restricts modifications to separate patch files. So your complaint is that the comma after modifications makes it possible to read the clause in an unreasonable way? Or if I misunderstand you: which concrete action do you think the clause forbid (which the DFSG requires a license to allow)? The way you seem to be reading the clause does not make sense internally. If we take the patch clause to apply to non-distributed modifications, it reads You may make modifications to the Software in a form that is separate from the Software ... However, a modification that is separate from what it modifies is not a modification at all - it is just free-standing commentary. So your reading implies that modifications are totally forbidden anyhow. That would render the whole clause useless, and leave no way to build the binaries built from modified sources that clause 4 explicitly allows me to distribute. b. When modifications to the Software are released under this license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the initial developer of the Software to distribute your modification in future versions of the Software provided such versions remain available under these terms in addition to any other license(s) of the initial developer. This is a problem. If you license your modifications under the QPL, you give the initial developer (often Trolltech AS) a special privilege that is not given to other parties, Hm, you may be right here. It took me several reading to see what you're getting at: That the initial developer wants the right to use third-party modifications in releases under *different* licenses than the QPL. So if I write a patch for QPL-licensed software and distribute it, the initial author may incorporate my patch in a version that they offer dual-licensed bewteen the QPL and BSD licenses, whereupon someone else can seize the BSD release of this new version and create a proprietary modification of it by stripping all of the initial developer's code and retaining only mine. I agree that this is rather troubling. If we were to replace a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted with something else of value such as a payment of US $1,000 must be paid; Why, then, are the potential copyrights of free software hackers who modify QPLed works without value? However, I don't think that this is the right argument. It could equally well be applied to the GPL's demand that I allow everyone the right to further modify my modified versions. This right of further modification is not intrinsically without value either, but we're happy about the GPL forcing hackers to relinquish it. The difference between the GPL and the QPL is not that the right QPL wants me to grant to the author is restricted to the author - after all, if that were the problem, I could just choose to give identical rights to everyone else. The significant difference is that the rights the QPL author wants are more inclusive than the ones the GPL asks me to give. Hm, this analysis suggests that we should reject a license reading 1. You may modify this software and give away patches or modified source, if you make your modifications available under This License. 2. You may give away binaries built from modified (or unmodified) source under any license you chose. because it prevents me from making modifications without granting everyone the right to take them proprietary. However, it is hard to pin this kind of unfreedom to a specific point in the DFSG. -- Henning Makholm - Or hast thee (perverted) designs to attempt (strange, hybrid) procreation experiments with this (virginal female) self?
Re: the FSF's definition of Free Software and its value for Debian
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:03:02PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: I think it is counterintuitive to read the directly or indirectly as a restrictive phrasing. On the contrary, it is meant to be inclusive, pointing out explicitly that the rights granted can *not* be restricted to *direct* recipients only. I don't see what's unclear, ambiguous, or inefficient about saying the recipient and all third parties. Sure. It just looked (to me; I may be dense) as if your objection was material rather than just related to a poor choice of words. -- Henning Makholm We will discuss your youth another time.
Re: JpGraph License Question [From the author]
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a person who does not feel that the QPL is DFSG-free, I should offer my clarfication of the above. For the record, and for the benefit of the JpGraph author, I should probably state that after having closely read Branden's objections to the QPL, I have come to think that at least one of them have merit. The problem, phrased in the context of JpGraph, is that if I download the free version and make some cool patches to it available on my website, the language in QPL 3b says that I *must* allow the upstream author to take my patch and apply it to the professional version that he sells under a non-free license. We believe [1] that a free software license should not force people who modify free software to allow their modifications to be used in non-free software. [1] That means: I believe so, and my informed guess is that the consensus on debian-legal would agree with me. This means that the best advice to the JpGraph author would be to consider switching to the GPL. The most significant difference (beyond those needed for DFSG-freedom) is that the patch clause will go away, but after we've dismissed the QPL I don't think there are any well-known free licenses with patch clauses left. (Of course there is always the dangerous possibility of cook-your-own-license, but that is not to be recommended). -- Henning Makholm It was intended to compile from some approximation to the M-notation, but the M-notation was never fully defined, because representing LISP functions by LISP lists became the dominant programming language when the interpreter later became available.
Re: the FSF's definition of Free Software and its value for Debian
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't see what's unclear, ambiguous, or inefficient about saying the recipient and all third parties. in posesion of the (modified) software, right? I'm not sure that is strictly necessary. Even if everybody has the *right*, the right can only be *exercised* by people who happen to be in possession of the software. It's not that different from everybody having the right to express their thoughts on print. Those who are not in a possession of a printing press (or some other device for producing hardcopies in quantity) can nevertheless not use that as grounds for demanding that somebody who has a printing press will help them exercise the right. -- Henning Makholm ... not one has been remembered from the time when the author studied freshman physics. Quite the contrary: he merely remembers that such and such is true, and to explain it he invents a demonstration at the moment it is needed.
Re: Bug#184806: Copyright notices are lacking
Scripsit Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] The copyright notices on the whois sources are not sufficient. How not? There is a clear statement from the author that he considers his work to be covered by the GPL. That is all we usually require. -- Henning MakholmBut I am a Sunni Muslim, the bemused Arab said.
Re: The Show So Far
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: The fundamental premise of free software is that copyright is an artificial limitation on what I can do whit a piece of software, and that I should be able to modify it and copy it. That's debatable, of course. One can get to free software via the artificiality of copyright, but there are other ways (and historically more common ones, I suspect): * Software is a social artifact with significant social consequences, and therefore ought to be responsive to social pressures (i.e., not just individuals). * If we can get people to work together writing software it'll work better. * Gag! Why can't I hack this code? Oh, I guess I'll have to use free software. My favorite is the first, which is why I think freedoms should attach to use. I'm willing to take this disagreement as fundamental, though (which for the current purposes means we'll argue it out if we're ever sitting together over a beer, but probably not 'till then). The reason that the possessor is special is that the only thing stopping the possessor from modifying or copying is the copyright law. Think here of public domain as a sort of zero-point: if a thing is public domain, what rights do I have? I have the right to modify it, and to copy it, and the basic premise of free software is that I should have those rights for all software. (The four freedoms of the FSF spell out this basic premise more carefully; I don't mean to be setting up some different standard than that one.) But despite the above I do want to point out that the argument about the only thing stopping the possessor can easily (and, IMHO, more justifiably) be used against the GPL and in favor of BSD-style licensing. Simply s/possessor/possessor of source/ to see what I mean. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: GPLv3 / Affero / RPSL
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:48:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: I think you have a valid point; at the same time, we should have expressed it at the time Troll was drafting the current QPL. As you well know, the role of spokesman for Debian was arrogated by Joseph Carter, who failed to, as I recall, accurately convey to TrollTech the concerns about the QPL being expressed at the time. In fact, so far as I know we have no record of his correspondence with them on this issue. No disputes there; however, it was Debian's responsibility to ensure that our spokesman -- official or not -- was accurately reflecting our concerns and communicating back do us. Failing that, Debian should have replaced him -- or at least had some other people participate in the discussions. So I don't think it's entirely a case of being able to pin it all on Joseph; the rest of us should have seen it coming and done something about it. (I include myself in that group) Now is, I think, too late to go back on that decision. There is value in being trusted. I think TrollTech sent a very strong message, and made a good move, when they decided to dual-license Qt under the QPL and the GPL. Agreed 100%. They were big enough to admit that they erred with Qt's licensing initially, and they did not lose the respect of the community. Indeed, I think they did lose a lot of respect, and people continue to harbor ill will. In one surprisingly candid post[1] from Miguel de Icaza in response to a Petrely article critizing Gnome that ran on Slashdot, Miguel stated: Those with long-term visions believe strongly that the foundation for building applications on Linux should be royalty free so Gnome is a good choice there. ... Some people want gnome because it makes sense license-wise (Red Hat and Sun seem to be concerned about *this* particular issue). [1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2003-March/msg00026.html Now, obviously I don't agree that a GPL license is a problem or imposing royalties on anyone (where THAT came from is anyone's guess). But if someone like Miguel misunderstands, I don't think that Troll has fully removed the stigma from their actions yet. KDE in particular continues to thrive. So why cannot we be big enough to admit that, if we have officially declared the QPL a DFSG-free license (a declaration of which I can find no evidence), that we erred, and that we recommend people follow TrollTech's example and dual-license their works under the QPL and GPL (with the footnote that many other DFSG-free licensing arrangements are possible, and they should feel free to contact us)? I must admit, I'm beginning to see it your way :-) Do we have any idea how much and what software is licensed under QPL only, with no dual-license provision? -- John
Re: Dissident versus ASP
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: We've established that you can't require someone who lets other people use a program, but who doesn't distribute copies of it normally, to give out copies of changes made to the source to any user who asks, too, since that'd require you to keep source available permanently and make it accessible, or maintain an out-of-band distribution mechanism, which are all overly impractical. Which is to say: You should never be forced to give your source changes (and/or rights to use/modify them) to people who merely use your program (but don't already receive copies). Is this established? I'm aware that some folks are arguing that position, but I didn't know it had been settled. Folks who are providing an ASP-style service generally are going to have big web servers and lots of bandwidth anyway; I'm not convinced that distribution of source would be a significant burden for them. Further, I see no reason that folks who haven't made modifications should have to host the source if it's available elsewhere. They can simply provide a link. So we're looking at the intersection of folks who have made changes and who have small servers/tight budgets. For people like this a license could require (for example) that either patches or source be made available for the currently running version within a months time. This gives them a chance to either try and get it submitted to upstream, or get a patchfile hosted someplace. (It also would give a business lead time, of course, but I'm not personally too concerned about that.) Since even these folks are (by definition) running a server of some sort, I really don't see how this is a horrible burden. A burden, yes, but not a horrible one. No different from having to provide source in addition to binaries on a web page (or on CD, or whatever). For purposes of the dissident test, dissidents could exchange floppies with patches on them occasionally. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: The Show So Far
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]: But despite the above I do want to point out that the argument about the only thing stopping the possessor can easily (and, IMHO, more justifiably) be used against the GPL and in favor of BSD-style licensing. Simply s/possessor/possessor of source/ to see what I mean. Or perhaps against the GPL and in favour of a licence which has the viral property of the GPL without the requirement to supply source.
Re: Bug#184806: Copyright notices are lacking
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 04:19:22PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] The copyright notices on the whois sources are not sufficient. How not? There is a clear statement from the author that he considers his work to be covered by the GPL. That is all we usually require. If the author does not place appropriate notices at the start of his source files, it makes it more difficult for him to enforce his copyright. Although we as Debian accept his word that it is covered under the GNU GPL, I noticed that Marco was a Debian Developer and the author of this software. As a service to him, because I thought he would appreciate the legal auditing, I went through the sources and created a patch that would apply the appropriate copyright notices. I did this because I had free time on my hands, and because it would be simple for Marco to just apply the patch. But what really concerns me is that the debian/copyright file does not make clear that Marco is licensing at least one file as GPL version 2 only. At the very least, the debian/copyright file should be expanded upon. Simon
Re: Dissident versus ASP
* Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030317 17:31]: Folks who are providing an ASP-style service generally are going to have big web servers and lots of bandwidth anyway; I'm not convinced that distribution of source would be a significant burden for them. Note the generally. You are aware that you imply, that only such persons should have the possibility to do so? What if some small individual wants to start a server doing decss. Not sitting in the USA another place under the jurisdiction of the large media-industry, there might be nothing doable against him. If he has to expose the source, he would thereby importing a circumvention device to the USA, thus eliminating any chance to visit the US without beeing convicted. What I merely want to say by this, is that distribution is not only a technical burden, but more. (Running a slightly modified webserver that sends out his sourcecode in Germany may expose one to liability for example. With the current GPL one can look at the modifications some months later and test them a bit better to get rid of any problems with that) For purposes of the dissident test, dissidents could exchange floppies with patches on them occasionally. And with any policeman using their photo-prcessing automatons[1] they place in their shops to communicate secretly? Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
Re: Standard non-copyleft free license?
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: License documents that succumb excessively to lawyer's desires to have many sticks with which to beat the licensee should be rejected as non-DFSG-free, because they don't promote freedom. I don't think we really need to worry about whether a license promotes freedom; we should worry whether a license restricts that freedom or not. Licenses that terrorize the licensee and discourage him or her from exercising the rights he or she should be able to expect from a Free Software license are not the sort of thing people should need to worry about coming from Debian main. Certainly. I'm just commenting on the motivation behind the clause. Since the actual action that the clause prevents is (at least in the US) illegal in itself, I don't see a significant problem for Debian. Don Armstrong -- Personally, I think my choice in the mostest-superlative-computer wars has to be the HP-48 series of calculators. They'll run almost anything. And if they can't, while I'll just plug a Linux box into the serial port and load up the HP-48 VT-100 emulator. -- Jeff Dege, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpzTXD9XOiOV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Show So Far
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: I don't think so; the fundamental premise of free software is: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor * The freedom to improve the program It's like you stopped reading and ignored the part where I said The 'four freedoms' of the FSF spell out this basic premise more carefully; I don't mean to be setting up some different standard than that one. Historically, the only way you could access a program at all was to possess a copy of it, so it made sense to worry about how you could possess a copy, but not have those freedoms. These days, people use software they don't possess every day, in pretty significant ways. Actually, they have *always* used software they don't possess. I *still* am a user of software that CMU doesn't even run any more--the software that maintained its registration records in the mid 1980s. You are though; you're starting from the means, not the ends, and thus artificially restricting the whole point. But if the end were to make sure that the software was available to *everyone*, why have free software licenses not ever said that until recently? If users were the focus, why were they not said? There have been non-possessor users for a very long time--indeed, the notion that nearly all users are posssessors really only dates from about 1990, when Posix boxes became cheap enough that multi-user systems weren't so important any more. In both these cases, the imposition is in the category of a genuine pain. But it's not an imposition on *freedom* (or rather, the imposition on *freedom* is negligible). I'm sorry, but that's not the case. _You_ might choose to disregard it, after analysing the situation and trading off the benefits against the drawbacks, but that does _not_ make the imposition negligible. Once again--there are two kinds of imposition that the GPL source requirement makes. First, is the requirement of disclosure of the source. Here, it's not negligible, but it isn't an imposition on freedom either. Second, is the physical need to burn an extra CD-ROM or devote extra space on the server so people can download the source. That one *is* an imposition, but it is negligible. You're well within your rights to think that the freedoms the GPL limits aren't valuable or important. That's fine and great. But they are important to a bunch of people, and it's a tradeoff that it's often necessary to carefully consider before making. There are two freedoms that the GPL limits (thinking of the source requirement): 1) The freedom to take away other poeple's freedom, and 2) The freedom to have a smaller, more economical distribution. Number (1) is a real imposition, but not a real freedom. Number (2) is a real freedom, but denying it is not a real imposition. Pretending that there's no tradeoff being made here and that therefore there's not only no precedent for tradeoffs but that they're a fundamentally bad thing is quite disingenuos. There is a tradeoff; it's like I say this over and over and you don't hear. For a condition which does impinge freedom, there is a very important trade-off to be considered: whether it is a real pain to conform to it or not. That you may not think my arguments prove the point is obvious, since we have a disagreement. But there's a difference between haven't made any arguments and we have a disagreement. What I mean by haven't made any arguments is that the things you've said simply don't make any sense unless you already hold your worldview. Distinguishing between possessors and users and claiming that the restrictions we currently allow don't affect freedom but that these just do isn't forming an argument, it's begging the question. It doesn't add any information, it just restates the original question. Isn't this true of your arguments too then? You keep misstating my own position so many times, that I suspect I still have not made it clear enough.
Re: The Show So Far
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But despite the above I do want to point out that the argument about the only thing stopping the possessor can easily (and, IMHO, more justifiably) be used against the GPL and in favor of BSD-style licensing. Simply s/possessor/possessor of source/ to see what I mean. No, and this is an important point. The BSD-license does not restrict modification to the possessor of source. If you have a binary, you can still change it. There is no restriction, and if you are clever enough, you can do it. So the situations are not parallel, and crucially so.
Re: The Show So Far
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Software is a social artifact with significant social consequences, and therefore ought to be responsive to social pressures (i.e., not just individuals). [...] My favorite is the first, which is why I think freedoms should attach to use. I'm willing to take this disagreement as fundamental, though (which for the current purposes means we'll argue it out if we're ever sitting together over a beer, but probably not 'till then). So this is a different sort of argument, and calls for a different response. It's not about what makes a license a free software license, but more fundamentally, about how software ought to work. Let's notice first off that nobody ought to tell falsehoods. But that doesn't mean that it's good to have legal mechanisms that prohibit all falsehoods. Doing that would punt free speech right out the window. So there are many important rules of society which, nontheless, it would be a very bad idea to ensconce in law. Still, maybe there should be a requirement that all software be published. That *is* vaguely part of what free software is about, and there is some merit to the idea. Here, where we are talking public policy, and not what makes a license a free software license, we should consider if there are any important social benefits to be achieved by having some software *not* be published. Since we are presuming free speech, and a broadly free-software consensus, we aren't going to tolerate laws that *prohibit* publication. So the only question is: should we have a law that *requires* publication? But this, it seems to me, would be bad public policy. Fred the Lawyer demonstrates, I think, that there are very good public policy rules why we should not have a law that requires publication. Whether a free software license must respect privacy rights, it seems to me that the state should--and so a forced publication requirement would be bad public policy. Thomas
Re: Dissident versus ASP
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Folks who are providing an ASP-style service generally are going to have big web servers and lots of bandwidth anyway; I'm not convinced that distribution of source would be a significant burden for them. But the proposals for closing the loophole apply not only to the big nasty people with the wide pipes, but also to the people, who, say, stripped out the source-downloading feature because they are over a satellite link to Antartica, and the changes were published anyhow in the lab back in Chicago.
Re: Dissident versus ASP
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: If your program is not distributed to anyone, then the license cannot require you to distribute it to anyone (no matter how many people use it or for what purpose, etc). Which is to say that, if accepted, the Dissident test and the practical concerns we have about providing source over SMS and such, imply that no free license can ever close the ASP loophole. Since there are fifteen things floating around, each of which gets called the ASP loophole, it's hard to be certain. But with suitable caveats, I think you are probably right. I agree that the people who might exploit the ASP loophole are big nasties, the problem is that I can think of a jillion little cases of people who are *not* big nasties, who get massively hampered by the proposed closures. (See my recent Antartic research example.)
Re: QPL clause 3 is not DFSG-free
Scripsit Jakob Bohm On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:29:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: Hm, this analysis suggests that we should reject a license reading 1. You may modify this software and give away patches or modified source, if you make your modifications available under This License. 2. You may give away binaries built from modified (or unmodified) source under any license you chose. Isn't that the BSD license? No; the BSD license allows me to distribute modified source under a different license (say, the GPL) if I feel like it. LGPL permits this too (with a small limitation). LGPL also offers me the opportunity to change to GPL for changes I make to the software. The GPL or any later version phrase allows the FSF to do this by adding unpleasant clauses to GPLv3. But I dont *have* to use the or any later version if I make modifications to a GPL'ed program. I am free to say that my hacked version is available under GPL v2 and v2 only. -- Henning Makholm I've been staying out of family conversations. Do I get credit for that?
Re: QPL clause 3 is not DFSG-free
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:29:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... b. When modifications to the Software are released under this license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the initial developer of the Software to distribute your modification in future versions of the Software provided such versions remain available under these terms in addition to any other license(s) of the initial developer. This is a problem. If you license your modifications under the QPL, you give the initial developer (often Trolltech AS) a special privilege that is not given to other parties, Hm, you may be right here. It took me several reading to see what you're getting at: That the initial developer wants the right to use third-party modifications in releases under *different* licenses than the QPL. So if I write a patch for QPL-licensed software and distribute it, the initial author may incorporate my patch in a version that they offer dual-licensed bewteen the QPL and BSD licenses, whereupon someone else can seize the BSD release of this new version and create a proprietary modification of it by stripping all of the initial developer's code and retaining only mine. I agree that this is rather troubling. If we were to replace a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted with something else of value such as a payment of US $1,000 must be paid; Why, then, are the potential copyrights of free software hackers who modify QPLed works without value? However, I don't think that this is the right argument. It could equally well be applied to the GPL's demand that I allow everyone the right to further modify my modified versions. This right of further modification is not intrinsically without value either, but we're happy about the GPL forcing hackers to relinquish it. The difference between the GPL and the QPL is not that the right QPL wants me to grant to the author is restricted to the author - after all, if that were the problem, I could just choose to give identical rights to everyone else. The significant difference is that the rights the QPL author wants are more inclusive than the ones the GPL asks me to give. Hm, this analysis suggests that we should reject a license reading 1. You may modify this software and give away patches or modified source, if you make your modifications available under This License. 2. You may give away binaries built from modified (or unmodified) source under any license you chose. because it prevents me from making modifications without granting everyone the right to take them proprietary. However, it is hard to pin this kind of unfreedom to a specific point in the DFSG. Isn't that the BSD license? (minus the disclaimers and attribution). LGPL permits this too (with a small limitation). The GPL or any later version phrase allows the FSF to do this by adding unpleasant clauses to GPLv3. I don't think this possibility makes a program non-free, as long as free copies remain free (i.e. there is no option for retroactively revoking the license as is). What is potentially unfree is, if any third party not involved with a copy of the work can demand anything (another copy, money, tax records...) from whomever created or is in possession of that copy. Such a copy fails the spirit of DFSG 7 (which only talks about forcing people to execute a separate license), which is the closest thing I kind find to a direct expression of the desert island and Burmese dissident tests [1]. Jakob [1] I point to Burma because their freedom violations are the subject of official international sanctions, and because free software has been publicly mentioned as being used to smuggle steganographic messages in and out of that country. It is thus a very real case, not just a hypothetical. -- This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings, do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue. Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any.
Re: Dissident versus ASP
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:42:34AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: If your program is not distributed to anyone, then the license cannot require you to distribute it to anyone (no matter how many people use it or for what purpose, etc). Which is to say that, if accepted, the Dissident test and the practical concerns we have about providing source over SMS and such, imply that no free license can ever close the ASP loophole. Since there are fifteen things floating around, each of which gets called the ASP loophole, it's hard to be certain. Name one that it doesn't apply to? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!'' pgpmNbgC6IPxK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Show So Far
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:27:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: 1) The freedom to take away other poeple's freedom, and Number (1) is a real imposition, but not a real freedom. The freedom to XXX is not a real freedom. Look, I know it's fun to redefine words so that you can pretend whatever you're arguing against is a contradiction in terms, but it doesn't go anywhere. Maybe *you* think that the *ability* to take away other people's freedom isn't a freedom, but other people, including myself think it fundamentally *is* a freedom, whether it's a worthwhile one or not. If you're taking it as an article of faith, or principle, that that freedom is not valuable or required, and that the freedom to keep changes private is not only valuable but necessary, that's fine. But you don't get to juggle some words and claim that's an argument that should convince anyone. Alternatively, if you think that is a real, convincing argument, let me just state for the record that your arguments aren't _real_ arguments. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!'' pgpxWaTaAfVEt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Dissident versus ASP
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:42:34AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: If your program is not distributed to anyone, then the license cannot require you to distribute it to anyone (no matter how many people use it or for what purpose, etc). Which is to say that, if accepted, the Dissident test and the practical concerns we have about providing source over SMS and such, imply that no free license can ever close the ASP loophole. Since there are fifteen things floating around, each of which gets called the ASP loophole, it's hard to be certain. Name one that it doesn't apply to? Of the ones that I've seen, as far as I can tell, it would apply to all the proposed methods of closing the ASP loophole.
Re: The Show So Far
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: Look, I know it's fun to redefine words so that you can pretend whatever you're arguing against is a contradiction in terms, but it doesn't go anywhere. Maybe *you* think that the *ability* to take away other people's freedom isn't a freedom, but other people, including myself think it fundamentally *is* a freedom, whether it's a worthwhile one or not. If you're taking it as an article of faith, or principle, that that freedom is not valuable or required, and that the freedom to keep changes private is not only valuable but necessary, that's fine. But you don't get to juggle some words and claim that's an argument that should convince anyone. Then, please, describe for me what your standard is. What freedoms count? If you say the ones listed in the DFSG, and only those, then the tax-return requirement would be legitimate in a free software license. I have a reasonable coherent notion of what constitutes a freedom. Of course there is nothing which prevents you from offering a different notion, but you haven't, as far as I can recall. You seem to take the tack that these are *all* restrictions on freedom; then you have to say which restrictions you think are acceptible and which you think aren't. I've sketched out my method of analyzing such a question, but you haven't. Would you care to do so please?
Re: Dissident versus ASP
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:30:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: The Dissident test is equivalent to saying (or, at least, implies): You should never be forced to give your source changes (and/or rights to use/modify them) to anyone but the users of your program. We've established that you can't require someone who lets other people use a program, but who doesn't distribute copies of it normally, to give out copies of changes made to the source to any user who asks, too, since that'd require you to keep source available permanently and make it accessible, or maintain an out-of-band distribution mechanism, which are all overly impractical. Which is to say: You should never be forced to give your source changes (and/or rights to use/modify them) to people who merely use your program (but don't already receive copies). Together, those say that: If your program is not distributed to anyone, then the license cannot require you to distribute it to anyone (no matter how many people use it or for what purpose, etc). Which is to say that, if accepted, the Dissident test and the practical concerns we have about providing source over SMS and such, imply that no free license can ever close the ASP loophole. Cheers, aj I certainly aggree with the first test (even though RMS does not). Not because people should be allowed to take free software proprietary, but because there are many reasons why the contents, existence or whereabouts of a regionally modified program is likely to imply some information which can be considered reasonably private for other reasons. The dissident test expresses one situation where all 3 are very private. I do not aggree with the second test in general. A big service provider, whose primary service is to let people run a copy of a piece of free software can be reasonably required to provide the patches / sources to *that* program in a way similar to the current GPLv2 ways (immidiate access from a designated place, proactive provisioning to users, reference to public source if not modified or an implied offer to provide current version at distribution cost). For instance someone providing a $1 SMS service with no web server at all could send it out on CD-Rs at cost *if and when requested*. They could even offer to send it out on SMS charging $1 per 140 chars, but that would be stretching it. Someone running their company out of Antarctica could charge the transmission cost for the source download if someone insists on getting it. But the time-sharing company requirement must be written so it does not extend beyond that scenario at all. Someone running a small-time server should not be required to reveal source (but see DFSG 6). Someone who provides a different service altogether but happens to use a piece of free software to do so should not be required to reveal source. Someone who provides a time-sharing service and uses a piece of free software which is not the service should not be required to reveal that source. Example: A company whose service is to calculate paychecks and initiate the resulting money transfers and accounting transactions would be using many crucial pieces of software: The program that figures out all the strange laws and published aggreements regarding paycheck calculations could be subject to a GPLv3 publishing requirement if it was under the GPLv3. This would be a real pain, but also a real freedom (such companies often bark at implementing new payment schemes). If the company wants this to be kept proprietary they must keep that piece of code free of GPLv3 code. If they share they must share alike. The program or data which knows the secrets of some peoples private job and salary situations should remain private even if indirectly under GPLv3 (so there must be a personal information exception allowing those details to be weeded from the released patch). However it could be force requested by the individual receiving or paying that particular paycheck. The program which talks to the money transfer interfaces of various banking systems would (at most) be GPLv3 obliged with those banks as users. The program used to validate incoming requests as reasonable is not the primary service and should be exempt. There might also be a general exception for code implementing provider specific security checks, similar to the personal information exception. The kernel, compiler, shell, backup software, console I/O etc. of the computers running the system are definitely not the primary service and should be exempt. The system used to compute and track the charges incured by users of the service is not the primary service and should be exempt. The cgi script providing a web interface to the service is a borderline case (assuming the script contains GPL cgi code and also assuming that there are other ways to talk to the service (paper mail etc.)). The web server hosting that
Re: Dissident versus ASP
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:30:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: [ASP condition] You should never be forced to give your source changes (and/or rights to use/modify them) to people who merely use your program (but don't already receive copies). Hmm, I wonder if this could be softened so that it _in practice_ has the same effect, but does not put a burden on anyone. This would be similar to the GPL's approach to charging high prices: it's allowed, but in practice it doesn't become a problem because of the GPL's other effects. I'm thinking of a license that extends the proposed DMCA-subversion clauses, in such a way that everyone who has access to the source also has permission to copy it. Then, if you add something similar to GPL's clause 6 (You may not impose any further restrictions...), you get the effect that a network service that uses this software can only keep its modifications secret if all the developers involved agree to keep them secret. This will work for single developers and small groups, as well as for highly motivated groups (such as dissidents who risk their lives if the modifications are published), but rapidly becomes unstable for large groups and corporations. There are two factors that work against this scheme: - The no further restrictions clause would have to butt heads with confidentiality agreements in employment contracts. This may make it unusable in practice. Also, a restriction such as We'll fire you if you publish this code is not necessarily written down anywhere, but could be effective just the same. - If a company makes a lot of money from its service, then this could make even a large group of developers highly motivated to keep the source secret. This assumes that the profit is shared with these developers :) IIRC, similar cases have occurred with the GPL, where all the customers of a software development company decide that it's in their best interest not to publish the software that they paid good money for. Still, an approach like this might slip past Anthony's assumptions and close the ASP loophole indirectly. Richard Braakman
Re: QPL clause 3 is not DFSG-free
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:29:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: [...] because it prevents me from making modifications without granting everyone the right to take them proprietary. However, it is hard to pin this kind of unfreedom to a specific point in the DFSG. Wouldn't this principle also make the OpenSSL license non-free? If you distribute modifications to OpenSSL, you have to allow your recipients to distribute your contributions in binary-only form. I don't think there's any unfreedom involved here. All viral licenses impose some sort of restriction on how you can license derived works (and in fact, some BSD folks argue that this makes all of them unfree). The GPL, the QPL, the NPL, the OpenSSL license, and your sample license all have this property, and it seems strange to me that you would declare the more _permissive_ ones unfree. If the GPL had a loophole (let's call it ASP :-) that made it possible to make GPLed programs proprietary, would it then become unfree according to this principle? Richard Braakman
Re: Dissident versus ASP
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:41:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:42:34AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: If your program is not distributed to anyone, then the license cannot require you to distribute it to anyone (no matter how many people use it or for what purpose, etc). Which is to say that, if accepted, the Dissident test and the practical concerns we have about providing source over SMS and such, imply that no free license can ever close the ASP loophole. Since there are fifteen things floating around, each of which gets called the ASP loophole, it's hard to be certain. Name one that it doesn't apply to? Of the ones that I've seen, as far as I can tell, it would apply to all the proposed methods of closing the ASP loophole. *sigh* We're not talking about _methods_ of closing the ASP loophole, we're talking about _instances_ of the ASP loophole. Name one that isn't instantiated by someone making the program accessible to people for purposes, but not distributing it to them. Or else stop fudging around the topic. The claim is that: Dissident test + Practical objections == Can't close the ASP loophole and, furthermore that that equality goes both ways. That is that the Dissident test is just another way of saying that the only ways you're allowed to close the ASP loophole are ones which are practically unreasonable. The point of the syllogism is to make it clear that that claim isn't just an opinion, nor an exaggeration, but a reasonable and accurate restatement in all circumstances. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!'' pgpR27LRvoyJE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Dissident versus ASP
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:25:25AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: I'm thinking of a license that extends the proposed DMCA-subversion clauses, in such a way that everyone who has access to the source also has permission to copy it. Then, if you add something similar to GPL's clause 6 (You may not impose any further restrictions...), you get the effect that a network service that uses this software can only keep its modifications secret if all the developers involved agree to keep them secret. This will work for single developers and small groups, as well as for highly motivated groups (such as dissidents who risk their lives if the modifications are published), but rapidly becomes unstable for large groups and corporations. Huh? It seems meaningless to me: if you employ some people to work on your program, you put them under NDA so that they agree not to disclose the source code; if you work with other groups, you do likewise to them. If necessary, you do the NDAing at arm's length, something like: A changes the program E employs B under a contract that they don't distribute the program or its source, etc E asks A to give B a copy of the program A gives B a copy of the program E isn't covered by the program's license since he never has anything to do with it. I don't think it would be remotely reasonable or enforcable (or in line with giving people more free software) to somehow stop A from giving the program to B, or to stop B from being able to give copies to people who E approves of. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!'' pgpVUKLWzb5b8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Dissident versus ASP
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: Or else stop fudging around the topic. The claim is that: Dissident test + Practical objections == Can't close the ASP loophole and, furthermore that that equality goes both ways. That is that the Dissident test is just another way of saying that the only ways you're allowed to close the ASP loophole are ones which are practically unreasonable. I'm not fudging, I'm saying that, in all the cases I've thought about, I agree with your claim. I can't make statements about cases that I haven't thought about.
Re: Dissident versus ASP
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: The claim is that: Dissident test + Practical objections == Can't close the ASP loophole and, furthermore that that equality goes both ways. That is that the Dissident test is just another way of saying that the only ways you're allowed to close the ASP loophole are ones which are practically unreasonable. Sorry, when I say I agree with this claim, I mean the = direction. The = direction is surely false; for example, I formulated the dissident test long before the ASP loophole (of any sort) had ever been pointed out to me.
Re: OSD DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:51:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Note that you do _not_ get to assume privacy is good and moral and a right of both individuals and corporations. Justify it in other terms, Why? Moral judgements can never be justified ex nihil. Nonsense. I can justify every one of the DFSG's existing requirements from nothing but a technical standpoint. Then they're technical judgements, and morals don't (or at least needn't) come into it *for you*. Other people may feel that the requirements are morally-based, in which case, for those people, he's right. Hope that makes sense. Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fine day for friends. So-so day for you.
Re: Dissident versus ASP
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 04:31:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: The claim is that: Dissident test + Practical objections == Can't close the ASP loophole and, furthermore that that equality goes both ways. That is that the Dissident test is just another way of saying that the only ways you're allowed to close the ASP loophole are ones which are practically unreasonable. Sorry, when I say I agree with this claim, I mean the = direction. The = direction is surely false; for example, I formulated the dissident test long before the ASP loophole (of any sort) had ever been pointed out to me. Huh? I never thought about a number bigger than 10^128, therefore a^b * a^c = a^(b+c) is surely false for numbers that large You're not making any sense. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!'' pgpV5TLcKxisH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OSD DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 12:44:12PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote: On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:51:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Note that you do _not_ get to assume privacy is good and moral and a right of both individuals and corporations. Justify it in other terms, Why? Moral judgements can never be justified ex nihil. Nonsense. I can justify every one of the DFSG's existing requirements from nothing but a technical standpoint. Then they're technical judgements, and morals don't (or at least needn't) come into it *for you*. Other people may feel that the requirements are morally-based, in which case, for those people, he's right. No, the DFSG is a set of moral judgements: licenses that do such-n-such are unacceptably bad. Those judgements can be justified in terms of technical benefits they obtain. If you want to say that a particular judgement can have both moral and technical aspects, that's fine; but saying that any judgement which has moral aspects can never be justified by technical means is false, and claiming that any of the DFSG's judgements don't contain technical aspects is simply false. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!'' pgp6GeKgJEIDG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Show So Far
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:44:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Then, please, describe for me what your standard is. What freedoms count? If I felt confident being able to do that in advance, I'd be writing up a Debian Free Software Definition that defined them. You seem to take the tack that these are *all* restrictions on freedom; Yes, and that this is a trivial and uninformative statement. The state of being allowed to exercise an ability is freedom by definition, not being allowed to do so in some cases is a restriction on that freedom, also by definition. Freedoms are restricted all the time, it's simply not useful to say restricting freedom is bad, as it causes you to have to start babbling on about how the freedom to fire bullets in any direction you please isn't a real freedom, and we degenerate to completely uninformative semantic editor wars. then you have to say which restrictions you think are acceptible and which you think aren't. I've sketched out my method of analyzing such a question, but you haven't. Would you care to do so please? No, I'm sorry; I reserve my right to do so on a case-by-case basis. I can answer for the cases we already have though: I don't think the freedom to distribute binaries without source is a key freedom, nor do I think being able to make changes that you can keep private forever is a key freedom. I don't think removing those freedoms should be forbidden from free licenses. I do think both freedoms have value in some circumstances. I don't think it's particularly onerous working around not having those freedoms. I don't think hiding source code is in anyone's long term interests, either companies or activists. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!'' pgpR7BbPv4dhG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OSD DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 11:28:25AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: If you want to say that a particular judgement can have both moral and technical aspects, that's fine; but saying that any judgement which has moral aspects can never be justified by technical means is false, and claiming that any of the DFSG's judgements don't contain technical aspects is simply false. I think that's clearer and correcter than what either of us said before... Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Keep it short for pithy sake.
