subject:"Re\: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU\/Linux distributions\?"


Alexandre Oliva wrote:



it has always been immoral to demand that others give up their rights.
Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be immoral. 



Taking  away any right is immoral.


Like, let's say, taking away one's right to own slaves?


Red Herring!  'I' don't/can't take away anyone's right to own slaves. 
The self-evident right of freedom of individuals takes it away.  There 
is no such self-evident concept that your own ideas or work must be 
encumbered by someone else's terms.  Forcing that takes away any 
possible joy someone might ever have in making their own decision about 
how to share their work. Someone improving a GPL-covered work does not 
have that choice.



A person who is respectful of others cannot demand to take their
choices away.


Agreed.  But granting more choices that the person didn't have is
hardly similar to this.


Better than a sharp stick in the eye'.


And refraining from granting other choices
that the person wanted to get, but that would enable the person to
take away from others,


You can't 'take away' anything that is already available.


might be respectful to the direct recipient
in some strange world, but not respectful of downstream users.


The downstream users can never have less available.  The choices when 
adding something are to permit it to be shared or not.  In many 
situations the GPL simply prohibits any sharing or improvement at all, 
the worst of all possible outcomes.



That's the reasoning behind copyleft.



And it is clearly misguided, given that there is no value in what it
provides, and much harm it what it takes away.


And yet, per your own arguments, sharing something that is undesirable
never harms the sharing you regard as good.  So why do you care?
Could you at least try to be consistent?


I am consistent and am talking about the larger set of what it 
prohibits, not the small subset of what it allows.




The only situation in which you're not able to share the code is when
it's part of a work that is based on someone else's work. 



Would you care to estimate how many potential improvements that prohibits?


Not respecting users' freedoms can never be an improvement.

Being unable to combine GPLed code with code under some other license
is not something you can blame on the GPL alone.


Of course I can.  The entire reason for the GPL to exist is to prevent 
combining with code under other terms.  That is it's unique feature.



It's always because
the other license is less permissive than the GPL, and for all other
copyleft licenses, because they were *designed* to be, to weaken the
plan of sharing of the GPL.


No, it is because only the GPL has a work-as-a-whole clause that 
explicitly prohibits most of the potential ways of improving the work.



There is no way to take any of the rights that the GPL conveys
compared to copyright law without this clause being applied.


And what about *other* rights you might have received through other
means?


What about them? The only way you get rights beyond what copyright law 
would enforce is by applying exactly GPL terms to all parts of a work as 
a whole.



If there is any part where only the GPL applies you must accept the
2b terms or you can't share it at all.


That's false.  You only need to abide by the conditions in 2b *if* you
choose to modify the program, and distribute modified versions.


No, you don't have the right to distribute without accepting GPL terms 
whether modifications are involved or not.  The upstream distribution 
where you got your copy would have already had to apply the GPL terms 
for you to obtain it.



If you merely run the program, or distribute it in source code form
the way you received it, you don't need to abide by any of the
conditions of section 2.


Running the program is permitted without accepting the license. 
Redistributing is not, modified or otherwise. If you distribute, you 
must apply exactly the GPL terms - which in the unmodified case had to 
have already been applied.



I'm talking about what the license actually says and what has to
happen if you comply with it.


A license (rather than license agreement) is a grant of permissions to
do certain things, nothing but it.The only thing you agree to is to
receive those permissions.


That's simply not true.


As long as you operate within those
permissions, you're covered.  If you operate outside them, you're not
covered by that license.  If you have another license that grants you
that permission, you're still covered.


But you can't be 'within' the GPL permissions (terms) unless you comply 
with it's work-as-a-whole clause.  And it explicitly says that nothing 
else can give you permission to redistribute.



Do you not agree that cooperation should be voluntary? Or that you
should have the right to make that voluntary choice?


No.  Quite the opposite.  It is a key point.  It is by no means wrong.


But you have no voluntary choice for the terms on your own work added

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-26 Thread Gordon Messmer


Les Mikesell wrote:

Alexandre Oliva wrote:


Please stop spreading misinformation.


That's funny - remember this post is in response to my exact quote of 
the license section 2b.  Do you really consider what the license 
actually say as misinformation?


The terms of the license aren't misinformation; your uninformed 
interpretation of them is.


--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?


Alexandre Oliva wrote:



Your wording is too ambiguous and you associate unusual politics with
some of those words so I have no idea what you intend.


Tell me which words, and I'll point out they're present in the GPL as
well, and you don't seem to have any trouble (mis)interpreting it.


Yes, of course the GPL misrepresents words to make restrictions sound 
like freedom.  That's the reason it exists. But the CDDL, MPL, etc., do 
nothing to conflict with the terms you specify.



- I charge the first customer, that hired the software development,
a fair price for the work I did.



Put yourself on the other side of that fence.  Would you be that first
customer for something no single person could afford?


If I need it badly enough, sure?  If I believe I can recover a fair
portion of those costs, sure?


I want to hear your plan for that.  Or any possible plan.  My contention 
is that the GPL terms make any such plan infeasible, if not impossible, 
and thus eliminates most of the usual incentives for creativity and 
innovation.  And it is a direct cause of not having a fully competitive, 
mostly free, alternative to the monopoly product.  If I need to be more 
explicit, just as certain extreme leftist political systems eliminate 
incentives to productivity, copyleft terms eliminate incentives to 
creativity.



- This customer is entitled to further distribute it or sell it, since
it's Free Software.



Yet, the first recipient can also sell it at a lower cost - or give it
away.


Why should I care?  Remember, I've already been paid by my work.  If
they do, good for them!


No, in my scenario, you are the one doing the funding.  Not some 
imaginary first customer that you make up.



Why? Long before that the early recipients will have made it
available.


If they do, per your argument, they'd be losing the ability to recover
part of their costs.  Why would they?


Because they can. And because their first customer can.  How can you 
ever ensure, or even encourage a fair distribution of the development 
cost of a large work?



to make the point clear, let's assume that this work would be
intuitive to use and have no flaws so there is no potential revenue
beyond an initial sale.


Because in some strange world, that's how the majority of software is?


Much free software is incomplete and lacking in documentation (because 
there's no particular reason for it to be complete or well 
documented...), but that doesn't have to be the case.  Some products 
'just work' and continue to work for at least the life of the machine 
where they were installed. When discussing incentives to produce new 
innovations, I'd prefer to talk about that latter kind that is better 
for everyone.


--
  Les Mikesell
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?


Gordon Messmer wrote:



Please stop spreading misinformation.


That's funny - remember this post is in response to my exact quote of 
the license section 2b.  Do you really consider what the license 
actually say as misinformation?


The terms of the license aren't misinformation; your uninformed 
interpretation of them is.


There is nothing to interpret.  If you don't like what the license 
actually says, why do you keep defending it?


--
  Les Mikesell
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-26 Thread Antonio Olivares

  Please stop spreading misinformation.
 
  That's funny - remember this post is in
 response to my exact quote of 
  the license section 2b.  Do you really consider
 what the license 
  actually say as misinformation?
  
  The terms of the license aren't misinformation;
 your uninformed 
  interpretation of them is.
 
 There is nothing to interpret.  If you don't like what
 the license 
 actually says, why do you keep defending it?
 
 -- 

He might defend the good parts of the license :)
just look in the analogy by Mr. Hoffman about the girl* 

While on this topic, I found articles on GPL Hindering code sharing 

http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/01/2333233

In that above page, I found an argument by Jack Hoffman*, 
quote
The BSD developers got what they wanted. Their code is in use. The BSD license 
intentionally trades away protection from inclusion in differently licensed 
projects in return for the increased likelihood that the code can be used.

The GPL developers got what they wanted. Their code is protected from 
proprietization (And ONLY their code. Anyone can take the original BSD licensed 
code and do what they want with it).

There is no story here. The GPL and BSD licenses try to achieve different goals 
and both work as advertised. If you want an analogy: BSD is like the girl who 
sleeps with everybody. She gets a lot of sex and is invited to every party, but 
nobody respects her. GPL is like the girl who is selective about her partners. 
She doesn't have quite as much fun and has earned herself a little bit of a 
hard-to-get reputation, but the people who know her treat her well. Proprietary 
licenses usually require payment.
/quote

In trying to work together, the code was released as GPL, but they found that 
there could have been violations?

http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20070829001634

Now, since the code was released under GPLv2, the changes cannot be shared 
between the two communities.  This is where the people lose on both sides of 
the argument.

Regards,

Antonio 


  

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?


Antonio Olivares wrote:

If you want an analogy: BSD is like the girl who sleeps with everybody. She gets a lot of 
sex and is invited to every party, but nobody respects her. GPL is like the girl who is 
selective about her partners. She doesn't have quite as much fun and has 
earned herself a little bit of a hard-to-get reputation, but the people who know her 
treat her well.


Not quite, but its a good pretense  The GPL girl has few partners 
because her disease is contagious.


--
  Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?


Gordon Messmer wrote:

Les Mikesell wrote:


The context is that it is a part of what you must agree to do if you 
want to do anything with _every_ GPL-encumbered work that copyright 
law alone would not permit. 


That statement is a little ambiguous.  The GPL does not have any power 
which copyright law does not grant.  Specifically, it can not change the 
terms of work licensed under any terms other than its own and it can not 
force you to accept any other or additional terms on such work.


The GPL doesn't change terms on anything else and I've never implied 
that it can or does.  However, it only grants permissions beyond 
copyright restrictions if you comply with its terms, which include 
applying the GPL restrictions to all parts of a work.  If you can't or 
won't do that, you don't get to do anything with the already GPL 
encumbered portions that copyright does not permit.


If the FSF doesn't not believe that the work-as-a-whole clause 
actually means the terms must cover the work as a whole, why don't 
they make another license that says what they want it to mean?


You're still not getting what work as a whole means.  First, you have 
to understand that legal interpretation of terms is not like English 
interpretation.   Legal terms have specific meanings which are sometimes
different than English meanings because language tends to change and 
evolve with people's use of it.  Legal terms do not change.


I understand that there can be some contention about what a 'derived 
work' is.  But there can be no confusion about what the GPL says about 
the components, once you agree that a work is derived and thus 
encumbered by the terms.


In the context of a legal interpretation of a distribution license 
(copyright license), work as a whole does not mean each individual part.


Of course it does, or proprietary parts could be included - or linkages 
that make them a required part of the work as a whole.


If it did mean each individual part, then the GPL would have used a 
different term.  If the GPL had said each individual part or something 
equivalent, then no license other than the GPL could be compatible with 
the GPL.  Copyright law does not allow you to change the distribution 
terms for a work to which you do not hold the copyright.


The licenses that are compatible with the GPL are compatible because the 
GPL restrictions can be applied without violating there own terms. 
Licenses where you cannot apply these terms are all excluded. That is, 
it is your inability to apply these terms that determines what can or 
can't be combined in something you  can continue to share.


Instead, work as a whole means the functional work that is a sum of 
all of the parts.  Since this meaning does not require that all parts 
have the same license, it allows for the work as a whole to contain some 
parts under different but compatible terms.Thus, a GPL protected work

may contain BSD licensed code.


In the case of the 'modified' BSD, it may.

 The BSD license does not place any
requirements on distribution that the GPL does not, so it is compatible. 


No, the reason it is compatible is that the modified BSD license does 
not contain any terms that prohibit you from applying the GPL terms over it.


 When you distribute a work that is GPL licensed and contains BSD 
licensed code, you are meeting the terms of the BSD license and are 
allowed to distribute that code.


Yes, but if you distribute a portion without applying the additional GPL 
restrictions you are violating your agreement that was required to be 
permitted to distribute the GPL portion.


However, since you can not change the 
license on a work to which you don't hold copyright, both you and your 
users are distributing the BSD licensed code under the BSD license.


Yes, someone who had no need to distribute the GPL-encumbered portion 
would not have to make that same agreement and could thus pluck the BSD 
covered portion back out under its original terms.


The terms of the GPL state that (among other things), you must 
distribute the source code corresponding to any modified or unmodified 
work as a whole that you distribute.  That means that if you start 
with a GPL licensed work that contains BSD licensed code, then among 
other options, you may:
  * distribute the unmodified work, containing the compatibly licensed 
parts.


Covered by GPL terms.

  * distribute the GPL licensed code without the BSD licensed parts. The 
result may not function, and I'm not sure why anyone would want to 
receive a non-functional work from you, but you have that right.


Covered by GPL terms.

  * distribute a compiled version of the unmodified work.  In this case, 
the terms of the GPL require that you also distribute or offer to 
distribute the source code to the work as a whole.  That means that 
you may not withhold any of the source code, or offer any of the source 
code under an incompatible license.  It does not mean that each part of 
the

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-26 Thread Antonio Olivares

  There is nothing to interpret.  If you don't
 like what
  the license 
  actually says, why do you keep defending it?
  
  He might defend the good parts of the license :)
 
 I preferred not to respond to Les because he insists on
 putting words in 
 my mouth.  In fact, I do like what the GPL actually says
 very much. 
 That is why I not only defend it, but use it for my own
 software.
 
 In my opinion, *all* of the parts of the license are good.
 
 -- 

Gordon, 

I respect your stance on the license issue.  In fact I would agree that most of 
the parts are good.  Many projects use the license which shows that it is not 
totally bad.  There are however certain restrictions and gotchas.  For instance 
in the Open Source Definitions 

http://opensource.org/docs/osd

The GPL could violate 9) 

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

The bad part is the one that hurts.  The one where you have to do ... in order 
to _.  They take away your freedom as the sole author of a certain project. 
 They are in control and not you, they can dictate what needs to be done at any 
time.  This could be a potential downfall of it.  

http://www.topology.org/linux/gpl.html

Regards,

Antonio 


  

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-26 Thread Gordon Messmer


Antonio Olivares wrote:


I respect your stance on the license issue.  In fact I would agree
that most of the parts are good.  Many projects use the license which
shows that it is not totally bad.  There are however certain
restrictions and gotchas.  For instance in the Open Source
Definitions

http://opensource.org/docs/osd

The GPL could violate 9)

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software



The license must not place restrictions on other software that is 
distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license 
must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium 
must be open-source software. 


The final passage of the GPL makes it clear that there is no intention 
on the copyright holder's part to claim that the GPL must apply to 
other software.  Therefore it does not contradict or violate the 9th 
guideline for the OSD.



The bad part is the one that hurts.  The one where you have to do ...
in order to _.  They take away your freedom as the sole author of
a certain project.


No they don't, and they can not.  If you are the sole author of a 
certain project, then you can license it in any way that you want, 
including under multiple different licenses, or changing the license at 
any time (though not retroactively).


--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-26 Thread Gordon Messmer


Les Mikesell wrote:

Gordon Messmer wrote:
That statement is a little ambiguous.  The GPL does not have any power 
which copyright law does not grant.  Specifically, it can not change 
the terms of work licensed under any terms other than its own and it 
can not force you to accept any other or additional terms on such work.


The GPL doesn't change terms on anything else and I've never implied 
that it can or does.


You have repeatedly insisted exactly that.

 However, it only grants permissions beyond

copyright restrictions if you comply with its terms


There's a cost associated with someone using a product that someone else 
created?  Shocking!


If the FSF doesn't not believe that the work-as-a-whole clause 
actually means the terms must cover the work as a whole, why don't 
they make another license that says what they want it to mean?


You're still not getting what work as a whole means.  First, you 
have to understand that legal interpretation of terms is not like 
English interpretation.   Legal terms have specific meanings which are 
sometimes
different than English meanings because language tends to change and 
evolve with people's use of it.  Legal terms do not change.


I understand that there can be some contention about what a 'derived 
work' is.  But there can be no confusion about what the GPL says about 
the components, once you agree that a work is derived and thus 
encumbered by the terms.


You're changing the basis of your argument, but you're not providing any 
more or better evidence for the position that you're arguing.  The GPL 
does not and can not encumber works that were included under 
compatible licenses.  Their original terms continue to apply.  This is a 
fundamental component of copyright law.


In the context of a legal interpretation of a distribution license 
(copyright license), work as a whole does not mean each individual 
part.


Of course it does, or proprietary parts could be included - or linkages 
that make them a required part of the work as a whole.


Proprietary parts can not be included because the GPL specifically 
prohibits terms more restrictive than its own to be applied to the work 
as a whole.


I'll reiterate my previous point:  The work as a whole is a functional 
sum of all of the parts.  If some component of a work contains 
restrictive licensing, then the sum of the licenses would be more 
restrictive than the GPL.  Since the GPL forbids this, you may not 
distribute a work that includes GPL licensed parts and proprietary parts.


Exactly the same thing, said another way: Including a proprietary 
component would create a de facto proprietary work as a whole.  The 
terms of the GPL prohibit using GPL components in a proprietary work as 
a whole.


Work as a whole does not mean all of the components, it means the sum 
of the components.  A work which is partially GPL and partially some 
other compatible license does not become licensed only under the GPL by 
law, by intent, or by magic.  The work is licensed under several 
licenses, each of which apply to separate components.  The terms of the 
GPL don't override the terms of any other license; instead they prohibit 
creating a whole work which includes components under incompatible licenses.


In other words, when a work contains GPL and BSD licensed code, and you 
distribute that work to another party, you are required to offer them 
the source code to both the GPL and BSD licensed code.  This is not 
because the terms of the GPL apply in some way to the BSD components, it 
is because if you do not agree to distribute the source code to the BSD 
components, then you aren't allowed to distribute the GPL components either.


None of the terms of the GPL require that you give up the rights that 
you were granted by the copyright holder who gave you -- either 
directly or indirectly -- code under a compatible license.


Yes they do.  The concept of 'compatible license' shows specifically how 
you must give them up.   Compatible licenses are ones that permit you to 
do what the GPL demands.  If you weren't required to apply the GPL terms 
to all parts, then all other licenses would be compatible.


That argument is founded on the incorrect understanding that work as a 
whole means all of the parts individually, rather than the sum of the 
parts.  The former meaning is unenforceable under copyright law.


Even after distributing a work under the GPL, you may extract the 
parts under a compatible license and distribute those parts, only, 
under the terms of their own license.  The recipients of your GPL 
licensed work as a whole may do the same.


If, and only if, they have no need to agree to the GPL terms.  Doing 
both at the same time is a contradiction in logic and dishonest even if 
you are unlikely to be sued over it.


I think you have a warped sense of honesty.  As a developer, and as a 
vocal advocate of the GPL as a license, I can't imagine anything that's 
dishonest about using someone

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?


Gordon Messmer wrote:


The GPL doesn't change terms on anything else and I've never implied 
that it can or does.


You have repeatedly insisted exactly that.


I've stated that is the practical effect, but the license can only 
control your actions, not anyone else's terms.  You are only given two 
choices for those actions.  You either don't do anything that copyright 
law would prohibit or you apply exactly the GPL terms to all parts of 
the work.



  However, it only grants permissions beyond

copyright restrictions if you comply with its terms


There's a cost associated with someone using a product that someone else 
created?  Shocking!


To someone used to BSD, MPL, CDDL, etc. licenses that do not restrict 
sharing or improvement of covered code, it is.


I understand that there can be some contention about what a 'derived 
work' is.  But there can be no confusion about what the GPL says about 
the components, once you agree that a work is derived and thus 
encumbered by the terms.


You're changing the basis of your argument, but you're not providing any 
more or better evidence for the position that you're arguing.  The GPL 
does not and can not encumber works that were included under 
compatible licenses. 


What it restricts is your actions, by your agreement to its terms.  And 
without that agreement you have the full restrictions of copyright law.


Their original terms continue to apply.  This is a 
fundamental component of copyright law.


Yes, but per your agreement to the GPL terms you can no longer use those 
terms yourself.  You've agreed not to.


In the context of a legal interpretation of a distribution license 
(copyright license), work as a whole does not mean each individual 
part.


Of course it does, or proprietary parts could be included - or 
linkages that make them a required part of the work as a whole.


Proprietary parts can not be included because the GPL specifically 
prohibits terms more restrictive than its own to be applied to the work 
as a whole.


There is nothing about more/less restrictive terms in section 2b.  The 
terms must be exactly as specified in the license.  If you don't agree 
to that you are not complying with the license.


I'll reiterate my previous point:  The work as a whole is a functional 
sum of all of the parts.  If some component of a work contains 
restrictive licensing, then the sum of the licenses would be more 
restrictive than the GPL.  Since the GPL forbids this, you may not 
distribute a work that includes GPL licensed parts and proprietary parts.


Likewise for something less restrictive.

Exactly the same thing, said another way: Including a proprietary 
component would create a de facto proprietary work as a whole.  The 
terms of the GPL prohibit using GPL components in a proprietary work as 
a whole.


They prohibit using any other license. Please point out the exception 
you've found.  There is nothing that permits any different terms.


Work as a whole does not mean all of the components, it means the sum 
of the components.


That doesn't make any sense.

A work which is partially GPL and partially some 
other compatible license does not become licensed only under the GPL by 
law, by intent, or by magic.


If you cannot distribute under exactly GPL terms, you can't distribute. 
  Compatible licenses, by definition, are those that permit this to happen.


The work is licensed under several 
licenses, each of which apply to separate components.  The terms of the 
GPL don't override the terms of any other license; instead they prohibit 
creating a whole work which includes components under incompatible 
licenses.


The alternative licenses in dual-licensed works can be used by people 
who have not agreed to the GPL terms.


In other words, when a work contains GPL and BSD licensed code, and you 
distribute that work to another party, you are required to offer them 
the source code to both the GPL and BSD licensed code.  This is not 
because the terms of the GPL apply in some way to the BSD components, it 
is because if you do not agree to distribute the source code to the BSD 
components, then you aren't allowed to distribute the GPL components 
either.


Yes, note how the GPL applies to all parts - because you agreed to apply 
it.  And you won't find any exceptions to that rule that let you stop 
applying it.


None of the terms of the GPL require that you give up the rights that 
you were granted by the copyright holder who gave you -- either 
directly or indirectly -- code under a compatible license.


Yes they do.  The concept of 'compatible license' shows specifically 
how you must give them up.   Compatible licenses are ones that permit 
you to do what the GPL demands.  If you weren't required to apply the 
GPL terms to all parts, then all other licenses would be compatible.


That argument is founded on the incorrect understanding that work as a 
whole means all of the parts individually, rather than the sum of the 
parts.

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-25 Thread Les Mikesell


Gordon Messmer wrote:


Any code under a compatible license can be combined with GPL code.  
The GPL applies to the work as a whole, but does not remove the 
license from the other parts which are under compatible licenses.  
They can be removed from the GPLed work and reused under their 
original license, as protected by copyright law, and as outlined by 
the link above.


That may be what the link says.  It's not what the license actually says.


It *is* what the license says.  It's just not what you *think* the 
license says.  You're confusing your interpretation of what the license 
says, for what the license says.


Which part of this do you imagine you can selectively ignore?

  b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.

This License includes this section...  There's no room to interpret 
that as saying or some other license you found on some web page or to 
not include parts of the work that happen to be in separate source 
files.  Yes, you might get way with ignoring it in some circumstances 
but it would be dishonest at best if you've agreed to the license terms 
first.


It says it does within the distribution as a whole.  If the terms 
don't apply would it mention the work-as-a-whole at all?


The terms do apply to the work as a whole.  When a piece of code under 
a compatible license is removed from the work, it is no longer a part of 
the whole, and the original license applies.


But if you agreed to the GPL in order to be able to share the whole 
work, you've agreed to apply its terms to all parts.  You may get away 
with not doing that, but then you are not following the terms you agreed to.


You do not, and can not, change the license on software that you didn't 
write.


Per section 2b, you cannot distribute any of a GPL'd work unless you 
apply exactly the GPL terms to all of it.  Other copies of that existing 
work would not be affected, of course, and there might be subsequent 
circumstances where someone did not have to agree to the GPL on a 
received copy and could selectively pick a piece out under its original 
terms.


You do not change the license on code by including it in a GPLed 
work.  Any code that you include, written by someone else, remains under 
their license.


If the license does not permit distributing under exactly the GPL terms, 
you can't include it at all.  Otherwise you'd be (sensibly...) permitted 
to include any code you were allowed to redistribute.  But that's not true.


--
   Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-25 Thread Antonio Olivares

 Why are they filling up the stacks with discussing on this
 topic.
Because many users on the list consider it very important.  Yes there might be 
other issues equally important like global warming and World Peace, but that is 
beyond the scope of this mailing list. 
 There are many other needy threads that require your tech
 advice.
There are other places that they need good people to discuss things that help 
in every day life as well.  
 
 This is philosophical, spread ur technical knowledge.
 
 Please don't continue this topic again and again.
Are you a moderator of the fedora-list?, or are you a self-appointed net cop?
 
 It's a request!
I also have several requests, but they cannot be granted :(
I want world peace, I want for the world to be a better place for you and for 
me.  I want people all to respect each other and never consider themselves 
superior because they are not.  I want a world in which people do not take 
advantage of people which have less resources than they do.   I want a world in 
which each person is equally important.  Is that a reasonable request?
 
 adios
 
 KSH SHRM
 
 People don't care how much you know, until they know
 how much you care...
They care about this issue a great deal and that is why they comment on it and 
they share their views.  While this issue is very controversial, no one person 
is right or wrong.  IT is a passion that comes from within.

They care about this thread and they care about GNU, if they did not care, they 
would not respond to this thread.  They have every right to respond to any 
thread in this list.  Neither you nor I should get in their way.

Regards,

Antonio  



  

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-25 Thread BRUCE STANLEY


--- Mikkel L. Ellertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Craig White wrote:
  I gather Mikkel, that this means that you have moved from the sidelines
  of criticizing the pointlessness of this thread to participation.
  
  Craig
  
 No really. I was just trying to add a bit of humor to it. I have no 
 hope of convincing anyone of anything except maybe how funny some of 
 the arguments being put forward are. I will try and remember to 
 insert the humor tags in future posts.
 
 Mikkel
 -- 
 
 

Why don't we all just agree that  Stallman and the FSF are the Borg  and
the  GPL is the elixir used to assimilate software (and people).

Resistance is futile.  ;-) 



-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-25 Thread Les Mikesell


BRUCE STANLEY wrote:


Why don't we all just agree that  Stallman and the FSF are the Borg  and
the  GPL is the elixir used to assimilate software (and people).

Resistance is futile.  ;-) 



Because when your license is strictly a limitation on the way your 
product can be improved, your competitor will continue to laugh all the 
way to the bank.


I do wonder if Stallman was the inspiration for the GNU logo, though, 
since we've moved into the humor department.


--
  Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-25 Thread Antonio Olivares

  Why don't we all just agree that  Stallman and the
 FSF are the Borg  and
  the  GPL is the elixir used to assimilate software
 (and people).
  
  Resistance is futile.  ;-) 
  
 
 Because when your license is strictly a limitation on the
 way your 
 product can be improved, your competitor will continue to
 laugh all the 
 way to the bank.
 
 I do wonder if Stallman was the inspiration for the GNU
 logo, though, 
 since we've moved into the humor department.
 
 -- 
Les Mikesell
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 -- 

The mascot is the 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildebeest

Created by Etienne Suvasa.

More can be found here:
http://www.gnu.org/graphics/agnuhead.html

Here you can find many famous mascots* that are Free**

http://chl.be/mascots/

* Free as in free beer or free speech,
** do not know which license they are released under 

Regards,

Antonio


  

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-25 Thread Alexandre Oliva

On Jul 25, 2008, ksh shrm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 This is philosophical, spread ur technical knowledge.

Do you have any reason to believe that technical knowledge is more
important for society than philosophical knowledge?

Nevermind that the subthread you entered was about legal knowledge,
which is technical rather than philosophical.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member   ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-24 Thread Rui Miguel Silva Seabra

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:29:26PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
 In general the terms I'm speaking of are more permissive than the GPL  
 and the GPL is the one that was intentionally incompatible, but that's  
 not the point.  The point is that the work-as-a-whole clause is an  
 immoral restriction.

Don't include GPL'ed software, then.

 No, but it means you haven't read or understood what accepting the  
 license takes away from you.
(...)
 Depending on your legal system there may or may not be a difference  
 between a license and a contract, but having agreed to:

Regardless of legal system, you don't accept the GNU GPL. That's moronic
since the GNU GPL is unilateral.

You do it this way, or you don't by default of copyright

 And here's a more pragmatic take on the issue.  Someone who says they  
 got more contributions back after changing their licenses from GPL to  
 something non-copyleft along with eliminating the moral issue of taking  
 away the choices of subsequent contributors:
 http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2001/12/12/transition.html?page=1

It doesn't take away the choices of subsequent contributons since they
didn't have any by default.

It *grants* extra freedoms to those by defaut of the law.

That these extra freedoms have as a rule of thumb if you distribute,
you must give back under the same terms is a *plus* and not a minus.

What you're crying about is about the GNU GPL not giving the power to
restrict freedom. An that is very good indeed, keep crying, at least I
don't care for crocodile tears.

Rui

-- 
Frink!
Today is Setting Orange, the 59th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-24 Thread Rui Miguel Silva Seabra

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:34:44PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
 But you must give up your freedom and rights or you are unable to
 participate in distributing these things as part of a work that
 contains any GPL-covered material.

 The or denounces your syllogism.  The must is inappropriate when
 there's an alternative.

 The alternative is not sharing any GPL-encumbered code at all.  Do you  
 consider that a reasonable alternative?

People have been sharing and modifying software licensed with the GNU GPL
for ages, isn't that alternative somewhat imaginary?

You seem to consider sharing proprietary software is sharing. I think
that's wrong since to me it is not sharing but, instead, gaining control.

Rui

-- 
Fnord.
Today is Setting Orange, the 59th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-24 Thread Alexandre Oliva

On Jul 24, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Alexandre Oliva wrote:

 it has always been immoral to demand that others give up their rights.

Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be immoral.  But taking
away Immoral rights, that serve the purpose of exerting power over
others and taking away their rights and freedoms, no, nothing immoral
or wrong about that.

 Other copyleft and non-copyleft licenses followed that were designed
 specifically to be incompatible with the GPL, to prevent code sharing.

 BSD license whose intent is obviously to permit code sharing but not
 take away anyone's rights predates the GPL and certainly GPLv2.

The BSD licenses are not copyleft licenses.  They are permissive Free
Software licenses.  One of them is GPL-compatible, the other isn't.

 The GPL was intentionally incompatible because it's only purpose is
 to force you to choose between giving up your rights or sharing
 code.

You can't give up a right you never had.  The GPL (or any Free
Software license) doesn't (and can't) take away any right you had.

Its purpose is to ensure that all recipients have the four freedoms
respected in all programs based on the program licensed under it.
Permitting the program to be distributed under whatever terms you like
would grant you the power to not respect others' freedoms.  I'd much
rather you didn't have that power, and if you are a well-meaning
person, respectful of others, you shouldn't mind that you don't.

 Can't fault the GPL for that, can you?

 Of course I do.  There's never a reason for anyone to give up their
 rights, and no need to withhold  the ability to share code.

If everyone was respectful of others, there wouldn't be any such
reason, indeed.  There wouldn't be reasons for laws either.
Unfortunately, some people are too selfish, don't think of others, and
need society to put some limits on them so that they get stronger
reasons to respect others' rights.  That's the reasoning behind
copyleft.  It has its drawbacks and inconveniences, no doubt, but
we're much better off when someone has to decide between respecting
others' freedoms or incurring the costs of duplicating code in order
to not respect them: at least some of them will then decide to respect
others, and, for those who decide not to, they wouldn't have respected
them in the first place, so we lose nothing from them.

So the only actual loss is from incompatibility between Free Software
licenses.  As I explained on the thread from one month ago on
fedora-devel, exceptions are often possible (see 10. in GPLv2), and if
they're too hard to obtain, it's because of legal maintainability of
the projects, or because the licensors aren't really interested in
respecting your freedoms (this unfortunately happens), or in granting
you power to make it easier for you to erode others' freedoms (this
fortunately happens).

 If you think that's
 unacceptable, why did you accept the less permissive or artificially
 incompatible license that got you into this situation?

 In general the terms I'm speaking of are more permissive than the GPL

If they were strictly more permissive on all accounts, then they would
be compatible.  The original BSD license, for example, with the
advertisement clause, didn't create a major problem as long as only
UCB made that demand.  But as you combined code from multiple sources
with multiple such demands, it would soon have become a major hassle
to abide by all those advertisement clauses, to the point of making it
prohibitive.  Now, the modified BSD license, that came up after years
of negotiations between UCB, the FSF and others, lifts this burden and
thus becomes compatible with the GPL.

 The point is that the work-as-a-whole clause is an immoral
 restriction.

Granting permissions over the work as a whole is immoral?

 The thing that's not acceptable is forcing a decision to give up your
 rights or to not be able to share the code.

The only situation in which you're not able to share the code is when
it's part of a work that is based on someone else's work.  You don't
have a right to share that without permission from this someone else.
If you pretend that you do, you're misleading and confusing yourself
and others.

 Depending on your legal system there may or may not be a difference
 between a license and a contract, but having agreed to:

   b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
 whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
 part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
 parties under the terms of this License.

Ok, that's 2b.  [I realize I responded before as if you were referring
to 3b, sorry.]  Now, please realize that this is not to be taken in
isolation.  This is a condition on one of the various grants of
permission for you to copy and distribute the program.

  2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
  of it, thus forming a work based on the Program,

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-24 Thread Alexandre Oliva

On Jul 24, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Alexandre Oliva wrote:

 1. a grant of rights cannot possibly impose restrictions to whatever
 you could do before you received those rights.  It's a grant, so it
 adds.  It's not a contract, so it can't take away.

 Per wikipedia, there are locations where is a difference between a
 license and a contract and locations where a license is treated the
 same as a contract.

Those that use the term 'contract' for unilateral grants have a term
to make the distinction.  Say, in Brazil, the GPL is regarded as a
contrato benéfico (=~ beneficial contract), i.e., a kind of
contract in which only one of the parts becomes encumbered with
obligations.  I.e., the licensor grants the license and becomes
required to respect the licensees' freedoms and to grant the same
license to anyone who comes across the program and derived works
thereof, whereas the licensee receives permissions (subject to
conditions) to modify, copy and distribute the work and works based on
it.

 2. you can grant additional permissions as to any part of the whole,
 if you're the copyright holder for that part.  Nothing whatsoever
 stops you from doing that: not copyright law, not any copyright
 license.

 You could make it available separately under a different or multiple
 licenses

It doesn't have to be separately.  You can grant multiple additional
permissions along with the program.  Have a look at GCC, and look for
the additional permissions for say libjava, libstdc++ and libgcc.
They're all different, but they're all part of GCC.  And GCC is linked
with libgcc.  And GCC contains libiberty, that has files under many
different licenses, and also files in the public domain.  I.e., the
whole is available under the GPL, but there are additional permissions
for parts.

 But it doesn't matter that someone else has given you permission to
 copy a part under different terms if you've agreed not to.

The faulty assumption is the you've agreed not to.  See the other
message I've just posted.

 Note: you may do X as long as Y is not a restriction, it's a grant.
 you may not do Z under this license is not a restriction, it's a
 statement of fact, if doing Z requires permission from the copyright
 holder.

 It's at least equivalent to a requirement to pay for a copy.

Not quite.  In general, paying for a copy means you have to pay before
you receive the license and the copy, and you don't even get
permission to copy or distribute.  In fact, in general such copies
come with shrink-wrap license agreements (i.e., contracts) that try to
take away even fair use right you might have.

But the GPL requirements are different in an essential point: you
don't owe the author anything whatsoever if you receive the program
and just run it.  Furthermore, even if you choose to modify, copy or
distribute the program, you stil don't owe the author anything.

The conditions set forth make it clear that you owe the *recipients*
respect for their freedoms, and that there's nearly nothing you have
to do to clear this debt: offer them the source code you have, under
the same terms and conditions you got yourself, and refrain from
getting in their way should they want to enjoy their freedoms.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member   ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-24 Thread Gordon Messmer


Les Mikesell wrote:

Gordon Messmer wrote:


In accepting it's terms you give up your freedom to distribute any 
part of the work under different terms, including any of your own 
that you might want to add.


Since you never had any such freedom under copyright law, you aren't 
giving anything up.


That makes no sense.  You do have the freedom and right to license your 
own work under any terms you want.


I apologize.  I misunderstood what you wrote.  When you wrote that you 
give up the freedom to distribute any part of the work, I thought you 
meant any part of your choosing.


Still, you are wrong.  The GPL grants certain rights to recipients of 
the work as a whole.  Therefore, when I receive a GPL licensed work, I 
have all of the rights granted by the GPL to every part of the work.


Some parts of the work may be under additional licenses, such as the BSD 
license.  If I choose to copy those portions, I may choose to do so 
under the terms of the BSD license.


I may do this because under copyright law, only the original author of a 
work may change the terms of his license, unless they specifically 
transfer copyright to another party (which hasn't happened).  Since I am 
using the BSD licensed portions independently, and not as a part of the 
work as a whole which is licensed under the GPL, that passage of the 
GPL license does not apply.


Your entire argument against the GPL seems to be based on the idea that 
you repeat, that the GPL replaces the terms of components which are 
included in a GPL licensed work as a whole.  This is not the case.  I 
strongly recommend that you read:

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html

The first paragraph (a summary) addresses your concerns.  It illustrates 
two points:
1) you must comply with the included work's license, because it 
continues to apply when included in a GPLed work.
2) users who receive your GPLed work may extract the included work and 
reuse it according to its original license, because it continues to 
apply when included in a GPLed work.


--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?


Alexandre Oliva wrote:



it has always been immoral to demand that others give up their rights.


Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be immoral. 


Taking  away any right is immoral.


But taking
away Immoral rights, that serve the purpose of exerting power over
others and taking away their rights and freedoms, no, nothing immoral
or wrong about that.


There is nothing immoral about the MPL, CDDL, etc., etc..


The GPL was intentionally incompatible because it's only purpose is
to force you to choose between giving up your rights or sharing
code.


You can't give up a right you never had.  The GPL (or any Free
Software license) doesn't (and can't) take away any right you had.


If you look at it that way, then it gives no permission to share at all, 
and that becomes its only feature.



Its purpose is to ensure that all recipients have the four freedoms
respected in all programs based on the program licensed under it.
Permitting the program to be distributed under whatever terms you like
would grant you the power to not respect others' freedoms.  I'd much
rather you didn't have that power, and if you are a well-meaning
person, respectful of others, you shouldn't mind that you don't.


A person who is respectful of others cannot demand to take their choices 
away.



Of course I do.  There's never a reason for anyone to give up their
rights, and no need to withhold  the ability to share code.


If everyone was respectful of others, there wouldn't be any such
reason, indeed.


The concept of respect has no meaning unless it is a choice.  The GPL 
takes away your right to make that choice.  Or it denies your ability to 
share.  Neither are desirable.


 Unfortunately, some people are too selfish, don't think of others, and

need society to put some limits on them so that they get stronger
reasons to respect others' rights.


It doesn't matter that some people are selfish.  In terms of software 
sharing they can never harm what others make available.


 That's the reasoning behind

copyleft.


And it is clearly misguided, given that there is no value in what it 
provides, and much harm it what it takes away.



It has its drawbacks and inconveniences, no doubt, but
we're much better off when someone has to decide between respecting
others' freedoms or incurring the costs of duplicating code in order
to not respect them: at least some of them will then decide to respect
others, and, for those who decide not to, they wouldn't have respected
them in the first place, so we lose nothing from them.


No, we are not better off.  We have a sort-of usable OS that is 
prohibited from having the additions that would make it able to displace 
the monopoly we've been stuck with for decades.  We have prohibitions 
that make it unlikely that a business model will ever make sense that 
gives anyone the incentive to promote it.  So basically even though 
there is some fairly good software around, the GPL restrictions make it 
as though it doesn't exist for most people.



So the only actual loss is from incompatibility between Free Software
licenses.


No the actual loss is in the restrictions on creating improvements in 
all forms.  The GPL either prohibits innovation or prohibits sharing, 
depending on whether you accept it or not.



The point is that the work-as-a-whole clause is an immoral
restriction.


Granting permissions over the work as a whole is immoral?


Requiring such restrictions on other peoples' work as a condition of 
sharing any is immoral.



The thing that's not acceptable is forcing a decision to give up your
rights or to not be able to share the code.


The only situation in which you're not able to share the code is when
it's part of a work that is based on someone else's work. 


Would you care to estimate how many potential improvements that prohibits?


You don't
have a right to share that without permission from this someone else.
If you pretend that you do, you're misleading and confusing yourself
and others.


Fine, but since the GPL's purpose is clearly to prohibit such sharing it 
should simply say so instead of hand-waving about freedom while taking 
yours away.



Depending on your legal system there may or may not be a difference
between a license and a contract, but having agreed to:



  b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.


Ok, that's 2b.  [I realize I responded before as if you were referring
to 3b, sorry.]  Now, please realize that this is not to be taken in
isolation.  This is a condition on one of the various grants of
permission for you to copy and distribute the program.


There is no way to take any of the rights that the GPL conveys compared 
to copyright law without this clause being applied.



  2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?


Gordon Messmer wrote:

Les Mikesell wrote:
Its not that simple.  Say you receive a copy of a mostly bsd-origin 
work  previously modified by adding a few GPL-covered lines and 
applying the GPL to the whole as required for #3 at that step.  You 
now agree to the GPL terms in order to be permitted to give someone 
else a copy of the whole work. 


Yes, that is true for the work as a whole.

At this point, you've agreed not to pick out parts of the code and 
distribute under the license of its origin.


That's not true.  Even if the terms of the GPL *said* that it was true, 
copyright law doesn't allow it that power.  You cannot change the 
license on a work for which you are not the copyright holder.


It doesn't change the license, it denies the right to share the GPL 
covered portions if you don't apply the GPL terms to the whole.  If you 
can ignore the GPL and do what you want completely under other terms (as 
on a completely dual-licensed work or picking out only a separately 
licensed file instead of the rest) you can use the other license.  If 
you need to copy a GPL-only portion, you must agree to apply GPL terms 
to the whole to get that right.


--
  Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?


Gordon Messmer wrote:


The GPL allows you additional rights: you may distribute the work to 
others.


The GPL only allows those rights under limited conditions.

Standard EULAs give you *no* additional rights, and furthermore restrict 
how you can use the software that you received.


The difference is vast.


Yes, most proprietary licenses make no attempt to prevent distribution 
of other software that might be combined with it.  In the case of 
libraries, the whole point of their existence is to permit such 
combinations, whereas the GPL prohibits it.


You are so far divorced from reality that I've suspected you of trolling 
for the entire discussion.  I wouldn't have replied, except that I'm 
sure that *some* people actually believe some of the things you say, and 
one of the goals of the Free Software movement is to educate people 
about the truth of the matter.


But a proprietary license rarely demands that you place restrictions 
on how other people can create new things and share them.


Proprietary licenses place absolute and total restrictions on how people 
can create and share new things based on the licensed work.


What proprietary library has a license that restricts distribution of 
other works that use it?


--
   Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-24 Thread Antonio Olivares

  it has always been immoral to demand that
 others give up their rights.
 
  Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be
 immoral. 
  
  Taking  away any right is immoral.
  
 So you are saying that commercial, closed source, software
 is 
 immoral. So selling the software instead of giving it away
 is also 
 immoral. For one I can agree with you.
I agree too :)
 
 Mikkel
 -- 

It might be immoral and dishonest, we can get a crack and get on with life :)

For one, I have seen many friends share copies of MS Office, with regular key 
and with a generator if it fails.  I try to convince them that OpenOffice is 
great, but they tell me that I am a crazy, out of this world person that always 
challenges many things from this world.  They say that I am a rebel without a 
cause.  They call me the Linux Guy, or the Linux Dude, they will not run 
linux, just because I use it.  They say that Microsoft is also free and works 
better than linux.  Hey I did not pay for it, it came with my computer, that 
is what they tell me.  How do you explain to them that they paid the Micro$oft 
Tax.  

The same applies here with this never ending question.  Why GNU/Linux?  Where I 
prefer to say just Linux?  I was wanting to acknowledge the efforts of a person 
who has been very vocal and nice in the ongoing discussion of the GNU/Linux 
argument, Mr. Alexandre Oliva.   But some other guy, thinks he is so superior 
that makes all the great effort put on by Mr. Oliva go to waste :(  

I have seen many arguments for and against.  I will say this, be it wrong or 
right, I do not care. 

When God created the Ten Commandments, they were set in stone!  They were 
called The Ten Commandments.  Moses was the right hand of God.  He did not 
say Moses's/Ten Commandments.  Similarly, the linux kernel was built on top of 
GNU utilities, the operating system gathered a great deal of strength and was 
called by many Linux.  When this powerful system that we have grown to love, 
(except the GPL*) was created there was nothing set in stone.  They should of 
named it GNU/Linux from the beginning.  The argument(s) to change the name at 
this stage of the game is better spent fixing the terms of the GPL so that more 
people can benefit from it, instead of question its restrictions and clauses.  

I also pose another question, who will have the last word in this never ending 
thread that eventually will die off and line in the history of fedora-list most 
famous all time threads of all time!  ?

Regards,

Antonio


  

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-24 Thread Gordon Messmer


Les Mikesell wrote:
One person should not have to bear the development cost of something 
that could be widely used.  But there is no fair mechanism to share it 
with GPL-covered code.


So, you're arguing that it's not fair that you should have to write your 
own code when GPLed software is available, and it's also not fair that 
you have to use a compatible license in order to use GPLed work?


I have in my hand the world's smallest violin...

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?


Gordon Messmer wrote:



I strongly recommend that you read:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html 






Not necessarily, because it can't be included unless the GPL applies.


Any code under a compatible license can be combined with GPL code.  The 
GPL applies to the work as a whole, but does not remove the license 
from the other parts which are under compatible licenses.  They can be 
removed from the GPLed work and reused under their original license, as 
protected by copyright law, and as outlined by the link above.


That may be what the link says.  It's not what the license actually 
says.  And probably not what many copyright holders understand it to say.


The GPL doesn't actually change the terms of 
the permissively licensed code.


It says it does within the distribution as a whole.  If the terms don't 
apply would it mention the work-as-a-whole at all?


And of course this doesn't help with the prohibition against licenses 
that are actually free like the MPL and CDDL at all.


--
  Les Mikesell
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-24 Thread Mikkel L. Ellertson


Les Mikesell wrote:

Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:


Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be immoral. 


Taking  away any right is immoral.

So you are saying that commercial, closed source, software is immoral. 
So selling the software instead of giving it away is also immoral. For 
one I can agree with you.


Selling something doesn't take away any rights.

LOL - right, you don't have any rights when you buy software, except 
what the seller gives you. So you don't have any rights that can be 
taken away. On the other hand, you don't have any rights to GPL 
software except what the GPL gives you. So it can not take any 
rights away from you.


I know - I am being terribly unfair, using the same rules for both 
types of software.


Mikkel
--

  Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-24 Thread Alan Cox

 elaborate so I can show that your attack is based on false premises.

Its not an attack. The GPLv3 is slanted against certain uses. I happen to
think that is a *good* thing so I'm hardly attacking you.

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-24 Thread Craig White

On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 17:52 -0500, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
 Les Mikesell wrote:
  Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
 
  Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be immoral. 
 
  Taking  away any right is immoral.
 
  So you are saying that commercial, closed source, software is immoral. 
  So selling the software instead of giving it away is also immoral. For 
  one I can agree with you.
  
  Selling something doesn't take away any rights.
  
 LOL - right, you don't have any rights when you buy software, except 
 what the seller gives you. So you don't have any rights that can be 
 taken away. On the other hand, you don't have any rights to GPL 
 software except what the GPL gives you. So it can not take any 
 rights away from you.
 
 I know - I am being terribly unfair, using the same rules for both 
 types of software.

I gather Mikkel, that this means that you have moved from the sidelines
of criticizing the pointlessness of this thread to participation.

Craig

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-23 Thread Rui Miguel Silva Seabra

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 06:30:14PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
 Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

 The terms of a license have nothing to do with copyright law.  You 
 can  agree to anything in a license as long as it isn't actually 
 illegal.  An  exclusion of copyright rules is simply what you get in 
 return.

 With the GNU GPL you don't have to agree with anything. It is an
 unilateral grant of rights as long as you fulfill some obligations when
 you distribute pristine, modified or derived copies.

 If you don't agree to their terms you don't have the freedom to  
 redistribute.

You don't have that freedom because *copyright* restricts you.

 If you don't abide with those obligations, you don't have the permission
 to distribute pristine, modified or derived copies because copyright
  ^
 restricts it so.

 Exactly, the license is very restrictive.

No, copyright is.

 Even though they can't exactly force you to apply their terms to 
 other  people's work, it is as close as you can get.  They withhold 
 your  freedom to redistribute until you have agreed to their terms - 
 and in  the GPL case these must apply to all other combined work.

 Yes they can. Very simply it's the quid-pro-quod required of you in
 order for you to distribute pristine, modified or derived copies.

 Is there even a name for quid-pro-quo when it attempts to involve third  
 parties in the way the GPL interferes with combining existing works with  
 different terms?

It doesn't attempt, it's the conditions set before you. If you don't
like them you get what copyright says, and copyright is *very*
restrictive.

Of course there's another way: write your own code.

Rui

-- 
Umlaut Zebra �ber alles!
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 58th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-23 Thread Alexandre Oliva

On Jul 22, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I do not understand here, why some licenses are compatible and which
 ones are not.

License compatibiliy analysis requires looking into the permissions
and conditions established by each license, and looking for conflicts
between them.  For example, there's this funny Free Software license
that is incompatible with itself: it says you can run, study, modify
and distribute the software, with or without modifications, but you
must distribute your modifications as patches to the pristine version
of the file, rather than by distributing the modified version.

So, if you take a program A and a program B, and you want to combine
them, you can't do that, because both demand to remain as the
baseline.

A more common case of incompatibility is trying to combine two strong
copyleft licenses: each license permits you to distribute the
combination only under the license itself, so the only way you can
satisfy both is if they're both the same license.

Another common case is that of combining non-GPLed software with GPLed
software.  If the non-GPL license fails to grant some permission that
the GPL grants, the combination cannot be distributed, because the GPL
requires the combination to be distributed under the terms of the GPL,
and doesn't permit distribution if you can't offer or pass on the
permissions established in it for each and every part of the whole.


 For instance, the Mozilla Public License is incompatible with the
 GPL and we can see Mozilla firefox and/or Seamonkey, Thunderbird,
 .., etc live nicely in several distributions

Licenses apply to copyrightable works such as individual programs.
Even a single package might contain code under different licenses, as
long as the combination doesn't amount to a copyrightable work in
itself.  A distribution is a collection of programs.  Although such a
combination might be copyrightable in itself, and thus amount to a
derived work, the GPL makes an explicit exception to combinations that
are mere aggregations of packages in the same medium.  This is clear
permission for GPLed programs to be distributed along with programs
under licenses incompatible with the GPL, as long as the programs are
not derived works of the GPLed work.  Or something like that, IANAL
:-)

 Also a project that was licensed under the GPL, made changes to
 another license the CDDL, and I wondered why, GPL does not allow
 those kind of things?

If all the copyright holders of a program agree to offer the program
under a different license, copyright law says they can do that.  It
doesn't invalidate licenses granted before, or commitments to grant
such licenses, but they can stop offering the program under the old
license and start offering it under the new license.  Or they may
start offering the program under both.  Or offer it under some license
to some parties, and under another license to other parties.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member   ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-23 Thread Les Mikesell


Alexandre Oliva wrote:



Those are not (pure) licenses, those are license agreements.
Agreements as in contracts.  Contracts are meeting of minds and mutual
obligations.  The GPL is a unilateral grant of rights.



Not even close. You must accept it or you are not free to redistribute
existing code.


It's the kind of the opposite, actually.  By modifying the program or
distributing it under the terms of the license, you indicate your
acceptance, and there's no other way AFAIK to indicate acceptance.



Indication isn't quite the point, you either accept them or not.



In accepting it's terms you give up your freedom to
distribute any part of the work under different terms


This is factually incorrect, and the most trivial example is that in
which a program is available under more than one license.


Yes, but you have accepted the restriction to apply only the GPL terms - 
or not.  If not, then you can't do anything copyright would prohibit to 
the GPL-only components.



The restrictions are what apply if you don't give up the freedom to
choose you own terms for your own additions, or to add third party
components already under different terms.


Where in the GPL is the agreement not to do, or even the
requirement not to do that you claim one would have to agree with in
order to receive the permissions?


You agree to the whole thing - or not. There are a couple of 'or' 
choices in there, like how to distribute source, but other than that it 
is a yes or no choice, covering all of the work as a whole.



You don't have just have 'permission' to redistribute under GPL terms,
you have a mandate not to distribute any part of the whole under any
other terms.  It's not unilateral - you must give up your freedom.


That's the result of a mistaken reading, see above.  You're still
holding to this notion of restriction that you made up or were misled
to believe in.


Please show me the part that permits selectively treating components 
differently.




Permissions aren't the point - it is what you agree to do.



You agreed to accept the right to do a number of things.



But what you must agree to in the GPL covers the work as a whole, not
separate parts.


Yep.  No denying you have the rights you accepted.  So what?  How
*could* that take away any other rights you had before, given that a
copyright license can only grant rights?


The same way any agreement you make works.  If you agree to do 
something, it doesn't matter that previously you had the right not to do 
it.  If you accept the GPL terms you give up the rights you had before.



Yes, if the whole work is dual-licensed.  But if only a component is,
you'll have to choose how you want to handle the work as a whole.


Can you back this up?  Why do you think dual-licensing of the whole is
special in any way?


You only have to agree to the GPL terms to obtain the rights it confers 
over GPL-encumbered parts.  If some other license in a dual-licensed 
work provides sufficient rights, you can ignore the GPL and not accept 
its terms.  However, if you do accept the GPL, there is no way to 
selectively ignore it's work-as-a-whole clause.



And then the code is not free, and you are not free to redistribute.


That's not *re*distribution, BTW.  If you had received it like that,
then someone else had a right to give it to you; if it was under a
Free Software License, you most definitely have a right to pass it on,
i.e., to *re*distribute it.  You're talking about a work you created
yourself, so that's distribution of a modified work, freedom #3, not
redistribution, freedom #2.


Its not that simple.  Say you receive a copy of a mostly bsd-origin work 
 previously modified by adding a few GPL-covered lines and applying the 
GPL to the whole as required for #3 at that step.  You now agree to the 
GPL terms in order to be permitted to give someone else a copy of the 
whole work.  At this point, you've agreed not to pick out parts of the 
code and distribute under the license of its origin.



They withhold your freedom to redistribute



Your freedom to redistribute is respected.  There's no such thing as
freedom to choose whatever license you want in the FSD.  Choosing
licenses is not freedom, it's power.



Then your power is taken away if you would like to improve a work
covered by the GPL.


Now you're talking about freedom again.  Your freedom to improve the
work exists.


Only if you give up the right to choose the terms for your own work or 
to add existing components under any other terms.



Your freedom to distribute the improvement is respected
by the GPL, but not by the combination of the licenses you accepted.


Why do you consider that acceptable?  That is, why do you believe is it 
right for one license to have any affect on the terms of another?


--
  Les Mikesell
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-23 Thread Alexandre Oliva

On Jul 23, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Gordon Messmer wrote:

 You do have the freedom and right to license
 your own work under any terms you want.

Nope.  You have that legal right, but you're only operating within
your freedom as long as your choice respects others' freedom.  If it
doesn't, then you're using your right to exert power.

 You do have the freedom and right to redistribute other works under
 other licenses, free or with other arrangements.

You are entitled to the freedom to redistribute works, subject to
respecting others' freedoms.  The choice of license is not part of
freedom, it's part of power.  If there wasn't copyright law, nobody
would need any license from you.  Copyright law creates a legal right
that gives you power to control how others can use your own.

And then, as a consequence of this very law, you don't always have a
right to redistribute works.  Others are legally entitled to exert
power over you, even when that conflicts with your freedom.

So, no, because of copyright, you may end up without the right and
without the freedom you claim above.

 But you must give up your freedom and rights or you are unable to
 participate in distributing these things as part of a work that
 contains any GPL-covered material.

The or denounces your syllogism.  The must is inappropriate when
there's an alternative.

As explained above, because of copyright law, you end up without that
freedom and right by default, even though you should have them.  The
GPL respects the freedom to (re)distribute the program that you're
entitled to, restoring your right to do that which copyright law took
away, but not restoring your power to control how others can use the
work that you're using to derive another work you want to distribute.

The GPL doesn't require you to give up anything.  It only restores
some of your rights that copyright law took away, so that essential
freedoms are respected for you and for every other user.

 But the point is that you also cannot impose fewer restrictions,

1. a grant of rights cannot possibly impose restrictions to whatever
you could do before you received those rights.  It's a grant, so it
adds.  It's not a contract, so it can't take away.

2. you can grant additional permissions as to any part of the whole,
if you're the copyright holder for that part.  Nothing whatsoever
stops you from doing that: not copyright law, not any copyright
license.

 Please point out any exception you can find to section 2b.

Here:

 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
 * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
 * are met:
 * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
 *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
 * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
 *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
 *documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
 * 3. [rescinded 22 July 1999]
 * 4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
 *may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
 *without specific prior written permission.

additional permissions on top of those granted by the GPL.  No matter
what the GPL says, you still have the permissions above as to any file
in which these permissions are written down.

What makes you think they're revoked just because the whole is under
the GPL?  Only your flawed theory that the GPL imposes restrictions
that would somehow take away rights you had or received with the
program.  Show what part of the GPL says you give up rights you had
before, or that imposes restrictions, or hire a lawyer to explain
this to you.

Note: you may do X as long as Y is not a restriction, it's a grant.
you may not do Z under this license is not a restriction, it's a
statement of fact, if doing Z requires permission from the copyright
holder.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member   ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-23 Thread Alexandre Oliva

On Jul 23, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Alexandre Oliva wrote:

 Your freedom to distribute the improvement is respected
 by the GPL, but not by the combination of the licenses you accepted.

 Why do you consider that acceptable?

It's undesirable, indeed, but what's to stop people from inventing
intentionally-incompatible licenses or accepting them?

The GNU GPL was the first copyleft license.  It was incompatible with
other licenses that preceded it because they did not grant the rights
the GPL was intended to grant, and it was not deemed appropriate to
give up those rights for the sake of compatibility with them.  Can't
really fault the GPL for that, can you?

Other copyleft and non-copyleft licenses followed that were designed
specifically to be incompatible with the GPL, to prevent code sharing.
Can't fault the GPL for that, can you?  If you think that's
unacceptable, why did you accept the less permissive or artificially
incompatible license that got you into this situation?  If you
accepted them, you think that's acceptable.  If you don't want to
accept them, talk the copyright holders into changing their minds and
permit you to respect others' freedoms while not granting them the
power to not respect third parties' freedoms.

Anyhow, where does this leave you?  Does barking up the wrong tree
mean anything to you?

 That is, why do you believe is it right for one license to have any
 affect on the terms of another?

Moo.  Does when did you stop beating your wife? mean anything to
you? :-)

I don't believe that is right, and the GPL doesn't do any such thing.
This license you invented that you call GPL and spend your life
complaining about might do that, but then, that's between you and your
imagination.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member   ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Alexandre Oliva wrote:

 For me it means using/reusing/improving freely-available, well-tested
 code in all possible situations.

 And where did you get this idea that this is what Free (and|or) Open
 Source Software are about?

 That's what I say it is about.

I.e., you start out by assuming that there aren't differences between
these movements, and then conclude from this that they're the same.
Sounds like circular logic to me.

 Is there a Pope-of-Software who is the only person with the right to
 make decisions?

This is not about making decisions, this is about history.  It's a
matter of fact, not opinion.

 Why have a discussion if I can't present my own view?

You can.  You're doing just that.  That doesn't make it meaningful or
right.  If you want it to be convincing, you have to show convincing
evidence, not just insist that it's your view and you have every right
to have it and present it.  This won't change anyone's mind.

 The lack of freedom comes when the GPL is involved with any other
 code, a situation you seem to ignore.

The only cases of combinations for which the GPL refrains from
granting permission for distribution are those involving code under
licenses that are less permissive than the GPL, in at least one
aspect.  Why do you insist that the GPL is at fault for that?

 It is only difficult to escape when equal/better choices don't
 exist.

 'fraid you've never tried to move to a superior Free Software
 platform, away from an application that uses a proprietary format,
 that nobody else supports and yet you've stored years of data in it,

 Red Herring.  It's not necessary to do that.

Please look up 'red herring'.  I provided an example that directly
contradicts your claim.  How can you regard that as a distraction?

 I do notice the difference

Good.  Then you acknowledge that the values behind the FS and OSS
movements are different, and that they are often at odds with each
other?

 hence I know that the GPL is the one that most often does not permit

Again, this is a distraction, since the GPL is largely adopted and
promoted by both movements.  It is compatible with a large number of
licenses that are both FS and OSS licenses, and it is incompatible
with several other licenses that are both FS and OSS licenses.

You appear to be working under the common but incorrect assumption
that Free Software license means GPL-compatible license.  I can't see
why you'd obsess about the GPL in an investigation of differences in
values between FS and OSS movements.  Heck, the GPL isn't even the
only copyleft license.  In fact, almost all other copyleft licenses
are incompatible with the GPL, but this doesn't preclude them from
being Free Software licenses, or Open Source licenses.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member   ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?


Alexandre Oliva wrote:



but if you've agreed to the GPL terms covering that copy, you have
agreed not to


Again, think dual licensing.  The phrase:

  nothing else grants you permission to modify or
  distribute the Program or its derivative works.


Yes, so if you want to distribute a copy under the GPL, you must agree 
to its terms, which then cover the entire work.



under section 5 of GPLv2 would preclude dual licensing if it was
interpreted the way you seem to want.  It doesn't (and can't) affect
any other permissions you might have.


Obviously you can still obtain a different copy of a dual-licensed work 
in a way that doesn't require accepting the GPL with it. But both 
licenses can't apply at once.



Not because the GPL says so,
but rather because that's how copyright (pure, as in not-a-contract)
licenses work.


But as you keep pointing out, copyright law is what keeps you from 
distributing the GPL'd work unless you agree to its terms.



What is says applies to the license itself taken in
isolation, and it's true within that context.  Once you have other
permissions, nothing in the license can stop you from enjoying them,
regardless of whatever the license says.  It would have to be a signed
contract to take away any right you have.


But if you don't agree to the license you can't distribute it under the 
GPL.  And the license covers the work as a whole, so your choice to 
accept the license would mean you have agreed not to distribute any of 
it under other terms (per section 2b).  It's not a matter of rights, it 
is what you have agreed to.


--
  Les Mikesell
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-22 Thread Andrew Kelly


On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 14:54 +0930, Tim wrote:
 On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 21:47 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
  the GPL is the one that most often does not permit freedom compared to
  any other set of combinations
 
 Just because it doesn't permit the freedom that *you* want to exploit...
 
 All licenses will limit something that someone wants to do.  This one
 protects circumstances that others have deemed more important.  You're
 not going to get a completely free-for-all, do what you like with it,
 set of circumstances from a *licensed* thing.
 
 Fish in the sea are free.
 Can I make money from them?
 Yes, but you'll need a boat.
 Can I have a boat for free?
 
 The last line can be answered both ways, that's deliberate.  You want
 the fish for free, and a free boat.

And just to add even more color to the pallet, there's also the fact
that some feel it a crime to use food to create profit, so long as even
one human being suffers hunger.

Andy
(you can keep those 2 cents)

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

RE: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

  To cat the free fish living in the sea, Les will need
 more 
  than a free boat. 
  
  He will also need Nets, 
 snip
  He does need much more?  Yes GNU provides these
 things, but 
  he does not want to give credit to them :(  His
 company is 
  Les Fishery Inc., Not Les/GNU Fishery Inc.
 
 Good Grief!  You almost make me want to stay as far away
 from GNU as
 possible.  At least with MS, I give them my money, I get no
 religion and
 they go away.

Yes, they might go away, but other guys try to come in, the bad guys, for which 
you need to keep up a good firewall, a good antivirus and keep a good conscious 
when browsing the net.  They really do not go away, they send you updates and 
some stuff to check you, to see that you are doing fine, some tools to check 
that you do not get into trouble :)
 
 :::slapping self with a REALLY big smelly GNU/fish:::
 
I do agree with GNU on the following as RMS might have once said, 
Q: What is worse than a pirate copy of a Windows XP Install CD?
A: An authentic copy of it!

Regards,

Antonio 


  

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

On Jul 22, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 if he decides to make changes and distribute them, i.e, sell to
 other fisherman, then he must make those changes available back to
 GNU

I realize this is meant to be funny, rather than factually correct
(mixing up GPL with GNU, for one), but there's no such requirement in
the GPL.

Nobody's required to make changes available *back* to anyone else,
under any Free Software license whatsoever, distributing the software
or not.  The requirement is to make them available *forward* to the
recipients of that modified version of the software.

This is unlike some Open Source licenses, that do make such
requirements, even if you'd rather not distribute the software.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member   ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: SHUT THE F*CK UP ALREADY!!! Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-22 Thread John Cornelius


g wrote:

Ed Greshko wrote:
snip


Sure, why not?  They all make about the same level of sense.


true. but, more sense than the *one* who got these 3 going.


Oh, that is SO cruel!

--jc

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?


Alexandre Oliva wrote:


Yes, so if you want to distribute a copy under the GPL, you must agree
to its terms, which then cover the entire work.


But that does not take away any other rights you might have as to
specific parts.


Rights aren't the issue.  The question is whether you agree to the GPL 
terms, which specify the work-as-a-whole and what you will do with it.



But both licenses can't apply at once.


Why not?  Can't you redistribute a dual-licensed package?  Do you
think you have to choose between the two licenses before you're
entitled to redistribute it, and then distribute it only under one of
the licenses?


I don't see how you can agree to the GPL terms for a copy first, then 
distribute a copy of some dual or other licensed part of it in a way you 
just agreed not to do.  So it's one or the other.



That's not the way it works.  You have permissions.  You can choose to
use them any time you like.


Except that you agreed not to in that 2b clause.


What might happen, in the specific case of licenses with a termination
clause, is that if you perform some action that contradicts the
license, you may have your license to the whole terminated.

If this is what you're getting at, you may indeed be onto something.
But this is beyond my knowledge of copyright history, and anything I
say further would be speculation.


It's unlikely that anyone would know which terms you used for which copy 
or when you did it, but I don't see how the agreement to apply the GPL 
restrictions to the work-as-a-whole ever goes away once you make it.



My point was that you don't have to agree to its terms if you have a
different license to distribute some particular portion.  You can
clearly do that.  Your concern is that you might then no longer have
the GPL permissions as to the whole.  This concern was never clear to
me.


The point of that work-as-a-whole clause is to get you to agree to apply 
restrictions to other people's work - and your own if you add any. 
That's the reason the GPL is different from other licenses.


--
  Les Mikesell
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]



--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?


Antonio Olivares wrote:


If a person releases some code like that, he has to supply the source at a 
resonable cost of copying any time for the following 3 years?


It's generally easier to just give the source along with the binaries. 
But if you don't, the GPL requires the written 3-year obligation.



What if the person dies?
Then the software that person has released is not fully GPL because that person 
will not be able to comply with that part of the GPL.  He/She has passed away 
and cannot release the source much less asked to release it, unless there is 
divine intervention from heaven which may or may not happen!

This can happen to a company as well, if a company comes up and releases a 
Linux distro/GNU/Linux distro and they release several iso's and not post the 
src code, the original sources + the modified versions(their own modified 
versions).  Then the company has troubles and it goes belly up, that is goes 
bankrupt/shuts down/violates some Federal law or other major disaster.  How 
does the GPL make sure that those guys comply with the GPL?


It's hard to make a dead person or company comply with anything...  So 
if you want the sources, get them right away.


--
  Les Mikesell
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

On Jul 22, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Just like the Mepis/Zenwalk examples I used previously in the
 thread, they modified the code and released it, yet they were not
 releasing the changes/what they modified back to the community.

They didn't have to.  All the GPL required of them that they allegedly
didn't do was to offer those who got their binaries from them a chance
to obtain the corresponding sources.

 They got into some kind of trouble and were forced to release the
 code/make it available

AFAIK, nobody can be forced to do so.  The most a copyright holder of
GPLed sotware can get from a court for the defendant to cease
distribution, so that the infringement stops, plus damages.  Releasing
the code to rectify the harm caused by the infringement can be part of
the negotiation to reduce or even remove the damages.

I don't know of any court who's ever ordered someone to release source
code to satisfy the requirements of a copyright (pure) license.  How
could it?  It migth very well be the case that the infringing party
doesn't even *have* the source code, and can't possibly get it.

 The restrictions or the viral part of the GPL is what bites many
 people and what turns them against it :(

Please don't call it viral.  It isn't viral.  Not even close.  That's
a lie spread by the enemies of the GPL.

It only applies to derived works, i.e., its freedom is an inheritance
that a GPLed program leaves only its descendants.

 Many authors have changed licenses to others besides the GPL,
 because according to them, it restricts their freedoms :(

As long as they still respect others' freedoms, that's fine.
Unfortunate, but fine.
http://fsfla.org/circular/2007-078#1

 http://www.slax.org/modules.php?author=151

 Not all the modules are GPL, there is one GNU/Grub.  I use the
 source and build it according to rules of creating modules for Slax.
 Is there any chance I can get sued because I created those modules?

Of getting sued?  Sure, anyone can sue anyone else for any reason :-)

I think the question you wanted to ask is, is it likely that such a
lawsuit would be legitimate and successful, right :-)

I don't have all the facts right now, and I'm not a lawyer anyway, so
I won't comment on the specifics.

In general, if you combine into a single program code under some
specific version of the GPL with code under other licenses, you only
have permission to distribute the result if the other licenses are
compatible with that specific version of the GPL.

For a (not necessarily complete) list of licenses that are compatible
with the GPL, see
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

If you need help to determine whether some Free Software package
you're working on is in compliance with applicable Free Software
licenses, or have doubts about Free Software licensing in general, the
FSF offers a service to Free Software developers and users: just
e-mail your question to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Am I violating any GPL rules when I posted those modules on the Slax
 website?  The sources are freely available, the build scripts is
 contained within each module, does that satisfy the GPL?

From what you say, you're clearly not in intentional infringement, but
this is not enough to tell whether there is any unintentional
infringement.  The important questions are:

- whether you copied code whose copyright is held by someone else, and
that you don't have permission to sub-license, into these packages,
and whose licensing terms do not permit you (or any other person) to
extend to others the permissions encoded in the GPL, over the whole of
the combined work.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member   ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

  Just like the Mepis/Zenwalk examples I used previously
 in the
  thread, they modified the code and released it, yet
 they were not
  releasing the changes/what they modified back to the
 community.
 
 They didn't have to.  All the GPL required of them that
 they allegedly
 didn't do was to offer those who got their binaries
 from them a chance
 to obtain the corresponding sources.
Someone came out against them, just search Distrowatch.  That they did not 
fully comply with the GPL?  
 
  They got into some kind of trouble and were forced to
 release the
  code/make it available
 
 AFAIK, nobody can be forced to do so.  The most a copyright
 holder of
 GPLed sotware can get from a court for the defendant to
 cease
 distribution, so that the infringement stops, plus damages.
  Releasing
 the code to rectify the harm caused by the infringement can
 be part of
 the negotiation to reduce or even remove the damages.
Someone did/or other opposing distros that did not want those distros to get 
the attention that they were getting.  The code is available for free from some 
places, is that a sufficient condition?  Why do people have to tarnish products 
when they are doing good and those that are not accuse them of violating the 
GPL?  
 
 I don't know of any court who's ever ordered
 someone to release source
 code to satisfy the requirements of a copyright (pure)
 license.  How
 could it?  It migth very well be the case that the
 infringing party
 doesn't even *have* the source code, and can't
 possibly get it.

In the instance of Zenwalk, they posted it on their sites with the 
corresponding sources, for Mepis, you can get the sources provided that you pay 
and they will be sent to whoever asks for them.  
 
  The restrictions or the viral part of the GPL is what
 bites many
  people and what turns them against it :(
I do not know enough about it, I just quote what others say.  All I question is 
why some programs yes and others no, while both are free and open source.  
 
 Please don't call it viral.  It isn't viral.  Not
 even close.  That's
 a lie spread by the enemies of the GPL.
I am not an enemy of the GPL, I only question why it tries to restrict things 
that are not licensed within itself?  It is/was an excellent license, but there 
are some things that it prohibits, *I do not know which ones*, that forces 
authors of software to use other licenses in which their work is more 
protected.  
 
 It only applies to derived works, i.e., its freedom is an
 inheritance
 that a GPLed program leaves only its descendants.
 
  Many authors have changed licenses to others besides
 the GPL,
  because according to them, it restricts their freedoms
 :(
 
 As long as they still respect others' freedoms,
 that's fine.
 Unfortunate, but fine.
 http://fsfla.org/circular/2007-078#1
 
  http://www.slax.org/modules.php?author=151
 
  Not all the modules are GPL, there is one GNU/Grub.  I
 use the
  source and build it according to rules of creating
 modules for Slax.
  Is there any chance I can get sued because I created
 those modules?
 
 Of getting sued?  Sure, anyone can sue anyone else for any
 reason :-)
 
 I think the question you wanted to ask is, is it likely
 that such a
 lawsuit would be legitimate and successful, right :-)
Yes, that is more of what I was asking.  
 
 I don't have all the facts right now, and I'm not a
 lawyer anyway, so
 I won't comment on the specifics.
 
 In general, if you combine into a single program code under
 some
 specific version of the GPL with code under other licenses,
 you only
 have permission to distribute the result if the other
 licenses are
 compatible with that specific version of the GPL.
 
 For a (not necessarily complete) list of licenses that are
 compatible
 with the GPL, see
 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
 
 If you need help to determine whether some Free Software
 package
 you're working on is in compliance with applicable Free
 Software
 licenses, or have doubts about Free Software licensing in
 general, the
 FSF offers a service to Free Software developers and users:
 just
 e-mail your question to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks for posting this, if I ever get into some kind of trouble, I will surely 
use this.  
 
  Am I violating any GPL rules when I posted those
 modules on the Slax
  website?  The sources are freely available, the build
 scripts is
  contained within each module, does that satisfy the
 GPL?
 
 From what you say, you're clearly not in intentional
 infringement, but
 this is not enough to tell whether there is any
 unintentional
 infringement.  The important questions are:
 
 - whether you copied code whose copyright is held by
 someone else, and
 that you don't have permission to sub-license, into
 these packages,
 and whose licensing terms do not permit you (or any other
 person) to
 extend to others the permissions encoded in the GPL, over
 the whole of
 the combined work.

In some ways I do have permission to

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 01:37:51PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
 Someone came out against them, just search Distrowatch.  That they
 did not fully comply with the GPL?  
(...)
 Someone did/or other opposing distros that did not want those distros
 to get the attention that they were getting.  The code is available for
 free from some places, is that a sufficient condition?  Why do people
 have to tarnish products when they are doing good and those that are
 not accuse them of violating the GPL?  

You seem to advocate a weird notion of rewarding copyright infringement.

 The people should decide in the end what they want to call it, is that fair?

Well, you can call ant to elephants, but they won't stop being
elephants just because you're really loud and insistent about it.

Linux's latest release can be obtained in its full and pure glory right here:

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.26.tar.bz2 [47 MB]

Now if you want to insist on calling other things Linux, go ahead and
do it. It's your prerogative to make that mistake.

Rui

-- 
Pzat!
Today is Pungenday, the 57th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

On Jul 22, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
 Yes, so if you want to distribute a copy under the GPL, you must agree
 to its terms, which then cover the entire work.
 
 But that does not take away any other rights you might have as to
 specific parts.

 Rights aren't the issue.

Of course they are.  A license is a grant of rights, nothing else.

 I don't see how you can agree to the GPL terms for a copy first, then
 distribute a copy of some dual or other licensed part of it in a way
 you just agreed not to do.

I honestly don't see any agreement not to do.  I see permissions.

The closest to that, in GPLv2, are sections 4 and 5.  The statement
These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this
License, in the case of dual licensing, or of a component under a
more permissive license, is simply not true in these cases.

It is at all clear, however, that section 4 does not apply in spite of
the 'you may not ... except as expressily provide under this License'
being false.

 That's not the way it works.  You have permissions.  You can choose to
 use them any time you like.

 Except that you agreed not to in that 2b clause.

Err, no.  2b is just a condition to one of the permissions.  You're
not even bound by 2b; you could instead use the permissions encoded in
1, 2a, 2c, 3, or any other permissions you have that are not subject
to this condition you object to.  2b is not a prohibition, just a
specification of one of the possible variants of the permission
granted in 2.

It's a you're welcome into my home, as long as you don't smoke
inside, or you smoke a pipe with flavored tobacco.  You're not
agreeing to smoke a pipe with flavored tobacco, or to never smoke
again.  You can smoke, even inside my home, if you abide by the
conditions of the permission granted.  Or perhaps you don't smoke, in
which case you go don't smoke inside.  And you can most definitely
smoke (or not) whatever you like elsewhere, if you have permission to
do so, or if there's no requirement for permission to do so.  It's a
permission, not a restriction.  (Given the assumption that, by law,
you need my permission to enter my home)

 but I don't see how the agreement to apply the GPL restrictions

You're still getting confused because you're thinking in terms of
restrictions.  There aren't any.  Think permission to go that far,
in the absence of which you couldn't go anywhere.  The restriction on
not going any farther is not something you get from the GPL, so by
agreeing with it you don't agree with any such restrictions.  The
restrictions are encoded in copyright law.  If you accept the
permissions granted through the license, they won't take away any
other permissions that lifted restrictions from law.

 The point of that work-as-a-whole clause is to get you to agree to
 apply restrictions to other people's work

Rather to grant the same permissions over any work derived from the
work provided under the GPL, to ensure that the whole remains free.
You don't have to believe me, that's spelled out in the preamble of
the license.

When not combined into that single work, if they're not derived works
of GPLed works on their own, their copyright holders can apply
whatever terms they like to it.  The GPL can't and doesn't change
that.

The condition for distribution of modified works only extends only to
works derived from the GPLed work.  If the combined work is derived
from a GPLed work, then its authors have granted you permission to
distribute the combined work under the GPL.  You also need permission
from copyright holders of any other works you have used.  If all of
them permit distribution under the GPL (say, because they granted you
a license that is more permissive than the GPL), then you have
permission to distribute the whole under the GPL.

And then, if you don't have any other permissions that would enable
you to distribute the whole under the GPL, then the GPL is only
license you could use to distribute the whole.

If you have permission from all copyright holders to distribute the
combined work under another license, you can do that too.  Even if the
licenses are incompatible, you can extend the permissions granted by
the copyright holders to all recipients of the program.  You don't
have to choose one and use it.  Even if you modify the program, as
long as you work within the permissions of both licenses, you can
extend those permissions to anyone else.

It's a bit like Schrödinger's cat.  Until you open the box and check
(i.e., do something that one of the licenses don't permit), the cat is
both dead and alive ( i.e., you are operating under both licenses at
the same time).

It's only when you operate out of the scope of a license than you are
then no longer permitted to modify or distribute the result of that
modification under that license.  You can still distribute the work
under the other.

 That's the reason the GPL is different from other licenses.

All copyleft licenses are

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 02:36:56PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
  I guess you don't want to read. That kernel is called
  Linux.
  I'd be as pissed off as Linus if Stallman wanted to
  call the kernel
  GNU/Linux when the kernel is called Linux.
  
  But Stallman is *not* doing that, he's perfectly fine
  and dandy that
  people call Linux to:
  
   
  http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.26.tar.bz2
  
  ... and other such releases like:
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpm -q kernel
  kernel-2.6.25.10-86.fc9.i686

 but he is not okay that a whole distro is called Linux without giving
 GNU any credit

Yes, and I share his view, the GNU project is at least just as worthy of
credit.

 where Linux the kernel is built along with the GNU
 utilities right?

Totally unrelated fact.

  Once you get into your head that Linux is...
 Linux can be the kernel itself as you have mentioned the tarball from
 kernel.org, it is also used to represent the various linux distributions
 that put that kernel together with gnu utiliites and other softwares to
 form a distro.  

No, some people perpetuate a mistake through the name of their
distributions. That still doesn't make it right.

  http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.26.tar.bz2
  
  ... then this...
  
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy
  
  ...suddenly has an entirely different look, one that
  isn't so
  favourable to Linus unless you think he doesn't know
  that Linux is
  
   
  http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.26.tar.bz2
  
  Don't play deaf with me, please.

 I am not playing deaf with you or anyone else.  You do not seem to
 understand.  I am not attacking the GNU/Linux crowd, nor the Linux crowd.
 I am neutral in the matter.  

You seem all but neutral. You also seem to want to continue flogging this
fish way beyond it's rot point.

 Linux is the kernel,

Linux is *a* kernel that GNU can use. There are at least four, three of
them quite usable (Linux, BSD and the Solaris kernel -- think project
Nirvana).

 Linux is the OS as well, what are you trying to convey?

There are two schools of what an OS is, some say it is just the kernel,
some say that a system comprising the kernel alone is so useless it
doesn't deserve being called a system, the minimum requirements of it
needing to be thus expanded.

I belong to the later school. If you belong to the first school, you
better stop using the term Windows and use kernel32.dll instead.

At least be consistent.

 Whose side are you on?  What are you arguing?

Funny you should ask that.

Rui

-- 
Hail Eris!
Today is Pungenday, the 57th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 03:29:34PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
 Why is it a mistake? 
 
 All I said is that people should call it the way they want to, if
 underneath the layers of software resides the linux kernel with/without
 the GNU utilites.  Like others have said on this list, they should call
 it whatever they consider is best.  You cannot force people to do as you
 want, whether old school or new school or whatever you believe.  IT should
 be called as you want.  Advocating GNU/Linux is okay peacefully, but not
 demanding as you come into the picture.  It is not right.  

Since I'm not demanding or forcing anyone, I'm sorry to say, but you're
dangerously near to this profile:

Channel of Information, On-line Forums

 * Monitor the relevant Usenet groups at all times
 * Write well
 * Be exceedingly formal and polite
   o It is very easy to give offense
   o Always assume that you are wrong; ask others to explain it to you
   o Developers are impressed by clear, precise, polite communication
   o Don’t sound like a prig

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf

I think it's useless to continue this, don't you? At least I won't bother
with you anymore, though...

Rui

-- 
Fnord.
Today is Pungenday, the 57th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?


Alexandre Oliva wrote:



Yes, so if you want to distribute a copy under the GPL, you must agree
to its terms, which then cover the entire work.

But that does not take away any other rights you might have as to
specific parts.



Rights aren't the issue.


Of course they are.  A license is a grant of rights, nothing else.


Licenses often impose terms you must meet as a condition of granting 
those rights.  In the GPL case, the only way you can meet those 
conditions is to apply the GPL terms on all parts of the work on all 
subsequent distributions.



I don't see how you can agree to the GPL terms for a copy first, then
distribute a copy of some dual or other licensed part of it in a way
you just agreed not to do.


I honestly don't see any agreement not to do.  I see permissions.


Permissions you get when you agree to the license terms.  Otherwise the 
restrictions of copyright apply.




The closest to that, in GPLv2, are sections 4 and 5.  The statement
These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this
License, in the case of dual licensing, or of a component under a
more permissive license, is simply not true in these cases.


If you don't accept the GPL terms you would have any permissions granted 
by sub-components.  If you do accept the GPL, it demands its own terms 
be applied to all components.



Except that you agreed not to in that 2b clause.


Err, no.  2b is just a condition to one of the permissions.  You're
not even bound by 2b; you could instead use the permissions encoded in
1, 2a, 2c, 3, or any other permissions you have that are not subject
to this condition you object to.  2b is not a prohibition, just a
specification of one of the possible variants of the permission
granted in 2.


2b says that if you accept the license - and you are not free to 
redistribute the gpl-only parts if you don't - that the terms must apply 
to all components.



but I don't see how the agreement to apply the GPL restrictions


You're still getting confused because you're thinking in terms of
restrictions.


No, I'm not confused.  You can't accept the GPL on a sub-set of a work. 
 You can ignore the GPL and use other terms available for a subset, but 
if you agree to the GPL, you've agreed to apply it to the whole.



There aren't any.  Think permission to go that far,
in the absence of which you couldn't go anywhere.


Permissions aren't the point - it is what you agree to do.


The restriction on
not going any farther is not something you get from the GPL, so by
agreeing with it you don't agree with any such restrictions.  The
restrictions are encoded in copyright law.  If you accept the
permissions granted through the license, they won't take away any
other permissions that lifted restrictions from law.


The terms of a license have nothing to do with copyright law.  You can 
agree to anything in a license as long as it isn't actually illegal.  An 
exclusion of copyright rules is simply what you get in return.



The point of that work-as-a-whole clause is to get you to agree to
apply restrictions to other people's work


Rather to grant the same permissions over any work derived from the
work provided under the GPL, to ensure that the whole remains free.
You don't have to believe me, that's spelled out in the preamble of
the license.


It doesn't matter if you believe the misleading preamble or not.  It is 
the fine print of 2b that demands that all combined parts of the 
work-as-a-whole have the GPL terms applied, or you don't have the 
freedom to redistribute any that don't have separate licenses.



When not combined into that single work, if they're not derived works
of GPLed works on their own, their copyright holders can apply
whatever terms they like to it.  The GPL can't and doesn't change
that.


But then you can't distribute the strictly-GPL part of that work because 
you didn't agree to the terms of the license.



The condition for distribution of modified works only extends only to
works derived from the GPLed work.


The condition makes it impossible to combine third party code that can't 
be covered by the GPL.



 If the combined work is derived
from a GPLed work, then its authors have granted you permission to
distribute the combined work under the GPL.  You also need permission
from copyright holders of any other works you have used.  If all of
them permit distribution under the GPL (say, because they granted you
a license that is more permissive than the GPL), then you have
permission to distribute the whole under the GPL.


Yes, if it is all-GPL, then no new problem happens with additional GPL 
distribution of the whole work.



If you have permission from all copyright holders to distribute the
combined work under another license, you can do that too.  Even if the
licenses are incompatible, you can extend the permissions granted by
the copyright holders to all recipients of the program.  You don't
have to choose one and use it.  Even if you modify the program, as

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 05:42:58PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
 The terms of a license have nothing to do with copyright law.  You can  
 agree to anything in a license as long as it isn't actually illegal.  An  
 exclusion of copyright rules is simply what you get in return.

With the GNU GPL you don't have to agree with anything. It is an
unilateral grant of rights as long as you fulfill some obligations when
you distribute pristine, modified or derived copies.

If you don't abide with those obligations, you don't have the permission
to distribute pristine, modified or derived copies because copyright
restricts it so.

 Even though they can't exactly force you to apply their terms to other  
 people's work, it is as close as you can get.  They withhold your  
 freedom to redistribute until you have agreed to their terms - and in  
 the GPL case these must apply to all other combined work.

Yes they can. Very simply it's the quid-pro-quod required of you in
order for you to distribute pristine, modified or derived copies.

Best,
Rui

-- 

Today is Pungenday, the 57th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

On Jul 22, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Licenses often impose terms you must meet as a condition of granting
 those rights.

Those are not (pure) licenses, those are license agreements.
Agreements as in contracts.  Contracts are meeting of minds and mutual
obligations.  The GPL is a unilateral grant of rights.

 I honestly don't see any agreement not to do.  I see permissions.

 Permissions you get when you agree to the license terms.

Still, where's the agreement not to do you allegedly agree to when
you accept the license, that you referred to as prohibitions and
restrictions of the GPL?

 2b says that if you accept the license - and you are not free to
 redistribute the gpl-only parts if you don't - that the terms must
 apply to all components.

Point is, even if you do apply those terms, they don't take anything
away, because they are unilateral permissions.

 Permissions aren't the point - it is what you agree to do.

You agreed to accept the right to do a number of things.

 It's a bit like Schrödinger's cat.  Until you open the box and check
 (i.e., do something that one of the licenses don't permit), the cat is
 both dead and alive ( i.e., you are operating under both licenses at
 the same time).

 At this point you've agreed to apply GPL terms to the whole work.

Nope.  You can always claim you merely distributed the work under the
other license.  That the copyright holder of the work chooses to grant
both licenses to the recipients is of no concern to you.  Unless you
distribute in a way that doesn't comply with one of the licenses.
Only in this case can someone else conclude that that was not a
license you were operating under.  (because otherwise it would have
been copyright infringement).

 Even though they can't exactly force you to apply their terms to other
 people's work,

No pure copyright license can.  The farthest it can reach is derived
works.  If other people's work are not derived works, they're
necessarily outside the scope of the GPL, unless you choose to make
them part of a derived work.  If you can decide whether to combine
them or not, you're not being forced.

 They withhold your freedom to redistribute

Your freedom to redistribute is respected.  There's no such thing as
freedom to choose whatever license you want in the FSD.  Choosing
licenses is not freedom, it's power.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member   ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

On Jul 22, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Like others have said on this list, they should call it whatever
 they consider is best.

Do you think it's just fine if I call you Florisvaldo Azeitonares?
What if people started a campaign and got a lot of people to call you
like that, because they consider it best?  What if you found that
offensive and denigrating?

What if you kid's colleagues at school started calling him by a
demeaning name?  Wouldn't you reprimand the colleagues at school and
teach them that this is not something that good kids should do, or at
least ask the teacher to do so?

Why do you think this situation is any different?  Why is it that the
bullies get away with using a demeaning term to refer to our kid, and
even find that they have a right to do it?  Just because they invented
the name?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member   ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

On Jul 22, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The code is available for free from some places, is that a
 sufficient condition?

Not for GPLv2.  For GPLv3, it is, but the responsibility of ensuring
people who get the binaries can get the sources still lies with the
distributor of the binaries.

 Why do people have to tarnish products when they are doing good and
 those that are not accuse them of violating the GPL?

If they didn't mean to do wrong, they fix it and move on (GPLv3's
automatic restoration is a great improvement over GPLv2's automatic
termination in this regard).

If they did mean to do wrong, then they're not doing good.

Of course you'll find people who are too trigger-happy and will go for
the jugular of people who didn't mean to do wrong.  That's
unfortunate, but there are such poeple everywhere.  In general, a
friendly approach to inform the person that they're making a mistake
is the best to get problems fixed and to verify that no ill was meant.

 In the instance of Zenwalk, they posted it on their sites with the
 corresponding sources, for Mepis, you can get the sources provided
 that you pay and they will be sent to whoever asks for them.

Sounds like both are in compliance with GPLv2 at least in this regard.

  The restrictions or the viral part of the GPL is what bites many
  people and what turns them against it :(

 I do not know enough about it, I just quote what others say.

When you do that, you're helping them spread it.  Please challenge it,
help us expose the lie and the manipulation underway.

 All I question is why some programs yes and others no, while both
 are free and open source.

I don't understand what you're questioning here.  Could you please
rephrase or elaborate?

 I am not an enemy of the GPL, I only question why it tries to
 restrict things that are not licensed within itself?

If you can read Portuguese (from your name, perhaps you can), please
have a look at http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/pub/gplv3-novidades
and http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/pub/copyleft, it may help
understand the reasoning behind the conditions of the GPL, if its
preamble doesn't for you.

 It is/was an excellent license, but there are some things that it
 prohibits

Nope.  Copyright law prohibits.  The GPL prohibits nothing.  It
doesn't permit everything, though.  Whatever it doesn't permit that
copyright prohibits, in the absence of some other license you might
have, remains prohibited.

 *I do not know which ones*, that forces authors of software to use
 other licenses in which their work is more protected.

What do you mean by protected?

 For the others, the users that demand the source, it is available in
 the own binary that they download, the instructions are provided as
 to how the binary is generated and how it is built and how it works.

This all sounds good, I don't see any conflict with the GPL (or any
other Free Software license, for that matter) in this description.
But it's not the whole story.  You have to look at the licenses of all
pieces of software you've used and see how they play out together.  If
there are conflicts, you might be in infringement.  Even if you are,
if you're well-meaning, and if the copyright holders of the software
you've derived from are well-meaning, some arrangement can generally
be achieved, but you might have to get in touch with them.

 I only question if it is not a GPL offense?  

Distributing sources along with the binaries are not a GPL offense,
no.  Whether they're packaged in a single file or not is irrelevant.

 Thank you Alexandre for your kindness and taking the time to explain
 the GPL and other things.

You're welcome.  One is glad to be of service.

 I know that the vast majority of users do not appreciate the agenda
 that you push, but it is something that you have to push.

Stress on have to :-)

 and some quotes from comments section in Distrowatch.com weekly

 Take comment 37

 I'm not an expert at all, just an end-user, and like it when
 something just works, as I find in Linux.

Sadly for this gnewbie, Linux doesn't just work.  It needs userland to
work, and that userland has GNU at its foundation.

 The people should decide in the end what they want to call it, is that fair?

That people can and should decide it, sure, by all means.  Whether or
not it's fair, that depends on how they decide.  It's between them and
their conscience.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member   ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?



 I don't understand what you're questioning here. 
 Could you please
 rephrase or elaborate?
I do not understand here, why some licenses are compatible and which ones are 
not.  For instance, the Mozilla Public License is incompatible with the GPL and 
we can see Mozilla firefox and/or Seamonkey, Thunderbird, .., etc live nicely 
in several distributions 
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
and it is a non compatible license with the GPL.  
Also a project that was licensed under the GPL, made changes to another license 
the CDDL, and I wondered why, GPL does not allow those kind of things?
It happened.  What was wrong with the change?  I found the answer here:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
 
  I am not an enemy of the GPL, I only question why it
 tries to
  restrict things that are not licensed within itself?
 
 If you can read Portuguese (from your name, perhaps you
 can), please
 have a look at
 http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/pub/gplv3-novidades
 and http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/pub/copyleft, it may
 help
 understand the reasoning behind the conditions of the GPL,
 if its
 preamble doesn't for you.
 
  The people should decide in the end what they want to
 call it, is that fair?
 
 That people can and should decide it, sure, by all means. 
 Whether or
 not it's fair, that depends on how they decide. 
 It's between them and
 their conscience.
 
 -- 
This last sentence is fair and sincere.  Thank you for that.  

Regards,

Antonio 


  

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

 If you can read Portuguese (from your name, perhaps you
 can), please
 have a look at
 http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/pub/gplv3-novidades
 and http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/pub/copyleft, it may
 help
 understand the reasoning behind the conditions of the GPL,
 if its
 preamble doesn't for you.
 

Well while I was not trained to read Portuguese anywhere, I could relate and 
make some connections.

First I got a 406 error: (never heard of that one)
Not Acceptable
An appropriate representation of the requested resource 
/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/pub/gplv3-novidades could not be found on this server.
 Available variants: 
gplv3-novidades.pt.html , type text/html, language pt

A idéia da GPL == The idea of the GPL

Software é livre quando o usuário tem quatro liberdades fundamentais: (0) rodar 
o programa para qualquer propósito, (1) estudá-lo e adaptá-lo às suas 
necessidades, (2) redistribuí-lo, da forma como foi recebido e (3) modificá-lo 
e distribuir as modificações.

Free software for the end user with four fundamental liberties
(0) program or programs for whatwever purpose
(1) User can adapt to his/her necessities
(2) It is redistributable in the same form as recieved
(3) if you modify it you have to distribute the modificiations(this is the part 
that has hit the distros I talked about)

Restrições adicionais na GPLv3

Additional restrictions

Something with DRM (Digital Rights Management)
That nothing should deprive the end user to do as he/she pleases with the 
products that he/she gets.  There is also the famous Tivo mentioned.  

Mais vantagens == More advantages

Balanço positivo == Positive Balance  

I read it and even though I did not understand it completely, I was impressed 
and in some ways the license looks good.  Not all projects have been released 
with GPLv3, but more will soon.  

Wbat I also have to thank you again if not already done, is for your patience, 
for your stregth and your courage to promote the message(s) that you have 
conveyed. 

/** sorry if I double posted, but was knocked out of internet and had to 
reconnect **/

Regards,

Antonio 


  

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?


Alexandre Oliva wrote:


Licenses often impose terms you must meet as a condition of granting
those rights.


Those are not (pure) licenses, those are license agreements.
Agreements as in contracts.  Contracts are meeting of minds and mutual
obligations.  The GPL is a unilateral grant of rights.


Not even close. You must accept it or you are not free to redistribute 
existing code.  In accepting it's terms you give up your freedom to 
distribute any part of the work under different terms, including any of 
your own that you might want to add.



Permissions you get when you agree to the license terms.


Still, where's the agreement not to do you allegedly agree to when
you accept the license, that you referred to as prohibitions and
restrictions of the GPL?


The restrictions are what apply if you don't give up the freedom to 
choose you own terms for your own additions, or to add third party 
components already under different terms.



2b says that if you accept the license - and you are not free to
redistribute the gpl-only parts if you don't - that the terms must
apply to all components.


Point is, even if you do apply those terms, they don't take anything
away, because they are unilateral permissions.


You don't have just have 'permission' to redistribute under GPL terms, 
you have a mandate not to distribute any part of the whole under any 
other terms.  It's not unilateral - you must give up your freedom.




Permissions aren't the point - it is what you agree to do.


You agreed to accept the right to do a number of things.


But what you must agree to in the GPL covers the work as a whole, not 
separate parts.




It's a bit like Schrödinger's cat.  Until you open the box and check
(i.e., do something that one of the licenses don't permit), the cat is
both dead and alive ( i.e., you are operating under both licenses at
the same time).



At this point you've agreed to apply GPL terms to the whole work.


Nope.  You can always claim you merely distributed the work under the
other license.


Yes, if the whole work is dual-licensed.  But if only a component is, 
you'll have to choose how you want to handle the work as a whole.



Even though they can't exactly force you to apply their terms to other
people's work,


No pure copyright license can.  The farthest it can reach is derived
works.  If other people's work are not derived works, they're
necessarily outside the scope of the GPL, unless you choose to make
them part of a derived work.  If you can decide whether to combine
them or not, you're not being forced.


And then the code is not free, and you are not free to redistribute.


They withhold your freedom to redistribute


Your freedom to redistribute is respected.  There's no such thing as
freedom to choose whatever license you want in the FSD.  Choosing
licenses is not freedom, it's power.


Then your power is taken away if you would like to improve a work 
covered by the GPL.


--
  Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Agreed that there is next to no chance for enforcement in such a case,
 but does your reading of the GPL not indicate that non-GPL
 distribution of copies of anything ever covered by its work-as-a-whole
 provision is prohibited?

Yep, my reading does not indicate that.  As I've already tried to
explain to you, the GPL doesn't take away any rights that you had
before receiving the program, or even before accepting the license.

So, if you have received a whole program under the GPL, and one of its
files says:

  This file is in the public domain

Then you can use it however you like, no matter what the GPL says,
because the GPL can't bring the file out of the public domain.

If the file says:

  Copyright 2008 John Doe

  You have permission to do whatever you like with this file,
  including running, reading, studying, modifying, distributing,
  publishing, selling, etc, as long as you retain the copyright notice
  and this license.

then it doesn't matter that the GPL refrains from granting you
permission to do certain things, you have that express permission
straight from the copyright holder in the file itself, and the GPL
will not take it away from you.

To make sense of this in your twisted GPL has restrictions
understanding, you could picture it as if each file was under a dual
license: the GPL under which the whole is distributed, with its
alleged restrictions, and the individual license applied to the file
(or even to parts of files).

To me it makes more sense to just take it as a sum of permissions:
such and such license over such and such parts (or the whole) grant me
permission to do such and such with those parts (or the whole); such
and such license over such and such parts grant me permission to do
such and such with those parts, etc.

Free Software licenses, being pure copyright licenses, can't remove
any rights, so this kind of reasoning has worked quite well for me.

Of course, if you bring non-Free agreements into the picture,
agreements that require explicit acceptance because they do remove
certain rights you had before, then things get messier, and this
simple sum of permissions approach won't work.

 I don't see any escape clause.

There isn't any for dual licensing either.  But that's because other
licenses and rights you might have are outside the scope of this one
license; it only adds to the things you're entitled to do.

That said, IANAL, so please don't take this as legal advice.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member   ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
 Several times, you end up having to decide between promoting software
 freedom and promoting the software that happens to be Free (and OSS).

 Yes, the divisive nature of the GPL is unfortunate.

FYI, the GPL (and very many other licenses) satisfy both the Free
Software and the Open Source Software definitions.  There's some 5
different licenses that satisfies one of the definitions and not the
others.  Please don't get the impression that the issue above has
anything whatsoever to do with licensing choices.  It's about
underlying values and goals of the two movements.

 Depending on whether you're guided by FS or OSS values, you'll tend to
 consistently choose one in detriment of the other.

 Yes, that is unfortunate, but you have to live with it to promote FOSS.

This is fundamentally contradictory.  If you have to choose between
these two, you're choosing between promoting either FS or OSS.  I.e.,
you're promoting one in detriment of the other.  How can that be
promoting FOSS?

Or, in a more fundamental level, how would it even make sense to say
promoting something, where something is defined by means of
conflicting goals?

I guess it's worth giving a concrete example, to save a round-trip
delay.

The FS movement cares about software freedom, so an essential part of
this movement is to not accept, endorse or promote software that
denies users any of the 4 essential freedoms, even if this means
inconvenience for or even a delay in the liberation of some users.

The OSS movement cares about popularity and convenience, so an
esential part of this movement is to accept, endorse and promote the
use of software that denies users their freedoms, when that is
convenient and can lure in more users.

Do you see the conflict in these two positions?  Do you see that a
step forward for one amounts to a step backward in the other?  How,
then, could it possibly make sense to even talk about promoting
FOSS?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member   ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Please show how something can
 include any GPL-covered work, yet be distributed under different
 terms if you insist on claiming that.

 Rahul Sundaram wrote:

 I don't have to show anything like that.

 You don't, but why make such a claim when you obviously can't back it up?

I think you're pasting each other.  The question is just not related
with the sub-topic at hand, and it's ambiguous.

What do you mean by include?

If you mean something like contain, then the answer is mere
aggregation, i.e., when the combination of the GPL-covered work with
the GPL-incompatible work, not derived from the former, is a fully
mechanical, rather than creative, process.

If you mean something like C's #include, then the answer can be
clean room implementation.

Now, what you're asking is about modules that are not derived works.
There's no reason to assume a module needs to include (in either
sense) GPLed code.  This doens't mean it's easy, practical or even
legally bullet-proof, but it's on this kind of argument that non-GPLed
modules for Linux are justified.

Now, I'd rather not go into further details, because I don't feel like
offering a recipe on how to work around the spirit of the GPL,
especially because I don't entirely believe it would actually work if
ever disputed in a court of law.

 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing

 Those are licenses that can be usurped by the GPL requirements.

Err...  Did you notice how many of those licenses have a NO in the
GPLv{2,3} compat columns?

Are you by any chance confusing FSF Free (= respects the 4 freedoms)
with GPL compatible (= grants the permissions the GPL grants without
establishing any further requirements)?

 The GPL must apply to the work-as-a-whole.

But do you have any reason to assume that a module can't be a work on
its own?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member   ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?


Alexandre Oliva wrote:



Depending on whether you're guided by FS or OSS values, you'll tend to
consistently choose one in detriment of the other.



Yes, that is unfortunate, but you have to live with it to promote FOSS.


This is fundamentally contradictory.  If you have to choose between
these two, you're choosing between promoting either FS or OSS. 


It is a problem the GPL creates.

 I.e.,

you're promoting one in detriment of the other.  How can that be
promoting FOSS?


How would you propose dealing with it when your purpose is to promote 
FOSS and as many choices as possible, then?



Or, in a more fundamental level, how would it even make sense to say
promoting something, where something is defined by means of
conflicting goals?

I guess it's worth giving a concrete example, to save a round-trip
delay.

The FS movement cares about software freedom, so an essential part of
this movement is to not accept, endorse or promote software that
denies users any of the 4 essential freedoms, even if this means
inconvenience for or even a delay in the liberation of some users.


I believe they are misguided in applying restrictions that make it 
impossible to use GPL code in many situations.  Still, there are some 
where it works, so in those cases it is still FOSS and a reasonable choice.



The OSS movement cares about popularity and convenience, so an
esential part of this movement is to accept, endorse and promote the
use of software that denies users their freedoms, when that is
convenient and can lure in more users.


'Luring' someone is a strange concept here. You seem to imply that 
someone who has a choice to use a piece of software does not have the 
same choice to replace it with another piece later.  That's not the case 
and even if it were, the correct solution would be to encourage the 
production of as many other choices as possible.  People always have the 
freedom to choose and change.



Do you see the conflict in these two positions?


Not really - except that the restrictions are harmful in terms of 
reducing subsequent choices.



Do you see that a
step forward for one amounts to a step backward in the other?


Not at all.  The more choices you have the better. You can only go forward.

 How,

then, could it possibly make sense to even talk about promoting
FOSS?


Because it makes it easy to move forward with many choices and never be 
locked into any of them.


--
   Les Mikesell
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]



--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-21 Thread Ed Greshko


Les Mikesell wrote:


Not at all.  The more choices you have the better. You can only go forward.


I keep telling my wife that  But she doesn't buy it.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?


Alexandre Oliva wrote:



Please show how something can
include any GPL-covered work, yet be distributed under different
terms if you insist on claiming that.



Rahul Sundaram wrote:



I don't have to show anything like that.



You don't, but why make such a claim when you obviously can't back it up?


I think you're pasting each other.  The question is just not related
with the sub-topic at hand, and it's ambiguous.


Yes, it's a game of semantics. This part of the conversation started 
with someone claiming that some other licenses are 'compatible' with the 
GPL and my counterclaim that within the 'work-as-a-whole', no terms 
other than the GPL can apply.



What do you mean by include?


I mean as a part of what the GPL calls a work as a whole, where some 
part of that work is already covered by the GPL.



Now, what you're asking is about modules that are not derived works.
There's no reason to assume a module needs to include (in either
sense) GPLed code.  This doens't mean it's easy, practical or even
legally bullet-proof, but it's on this kind of argument that non-GPLed
modules for Linux are justified.


Yes, that's really a separate issue, related to how modules operate.




Now, I'd rather not go into further details, because I don't feel like
offering a recipe on how to work around the spirit of the GPL,
especially because I don't entirely believe it would actually work if
ever disputed in a court of law.


http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing



Those are licenses that can be usurped by the GPL requirements.


Err...  Did you notice how many of those licenses have a NO in the
GPLv{2,3} compat columns?

Are you by any chance confusing FSF Free (= respects the 4 freedoms)
with GPL compatible (= grants the permissions the GPL grants without
establishing any further requirements)?


I'm talking about within a work-as-a-whole, which is the only place 
where there is any concept of compatibility.  Some licenses do allow 
their own terms to be replaced by the GPL, but it's a one way trip and 
that copy of such code no longer has its original license terms.



The GPL must apply to the work-as-a-whole.


But do you have any reason to assume that a module can't be a work on
its own?


On the contrary, Linus clearly stated that a module was not necessarily 
a derived work simply because it is loaded by the kernel and uses the 
services of the kernel.  I'll include a link again in case anyone wants 
to read what Linus actually wrote in 1995 instead of Rahul's 
mischaracterizations of it 
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/d5af1cc0012c3bec
And the FSF legal counsel said it was not a derivative work. See top of 
page 16 here: http://www.linuxdevices.com/files/misc/asay-paper.pdf


Some people seem to think the story has changed recently, but I'd prefer 
to believe that the statements made back then (when Linux badly needed 
more driver support) were not lies.


--
  Les Mikesell
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

On Jul 21, 2008, Ed Greshko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Les Mikesell wrote:
 Not at all.  The more choices you have the better. You can only go forward.

 I keep telling my wife that  But she doesn't buy it.

She does.  She just doesn't tell you about it :-P :-D

-- 
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member   ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
 I think you're pasting each other.  The question is just not related
 with the sub-topic at hand, and it's ambiguous.

Heh.  -ENOENGLISH.  s/pasting/talking past/

 This part of the conversation started with someone claiming that
 some other licenses are 'compatible' with the GPL and my
 counterclaim that within the 'work-as-a-whole', no terms other than
 the GPL can apply.

Both claims are correct, in a way.  Licenses can be compatible with
the GPL if they grand the same permissions and don't object to the
same conditions and requirements of the GPL.  Nevertheless, once there
is some GPLed work in a whole, the work as a whole can only be
distributed under the terms and conditions of the GPL.

 What do you mean by include?

 I mean as a part of what the GPL calls a work as a whole, where some
 part of that work is already covered by the GPL.

Include as in contains, then.


 Now, what you're asking is about modules that are not derived works.
 There's no reason to assume a module needs to include (in either
 sense) GPLed code.  This doens't mean it's easy, practical or even
 legally bullet-proof, but it's on this kind of argument that non-GPLed
 modules for Linux are justified.

 Yes, that's really a separate issue, related to how modules operate.

How they operate is irrelevant to copyright.  What matters to
copyright is how they're created and distributed.

 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing

 Those are licenses that can be usurped by the GPL requirements.

 I'm talking about within a work-as-a-whole, which is the only place
 where there is any concept of compatibility.

I'm sorry, even in this context, your statement above still doesn't
seem to me to match the contents of that web page.

 Some licenses do allow their own terms to be replaced by the GPL,

True, but these are very rare.  GNU LGPL and the Brazilian LPG-AP v2,
so far unpublished, are the only examples that come to mind.

Most licenses that are compatible with the GPL are compatible just
because they don't conflict with the terms and conditions of the GPL
in any way, so distributing the work under the GPL (without removing
the original license) is in perfect accordance with the terms and
conditions of the original license.

 but it's a one way trip and that copy of such code no longer has its
 original license terms.

Can you back this up?  All the evidence I've got suggests the exact
opposite.

 On the contrary, Linus clearly stated that a module was not
 necessarily a derived work simply because it is loaded by the kernel
 and uses the services of the kernel.

That's correct.  This is not the same as saying that, just because a
module is loaded by the kernel and uses its services, it is NOT a
derived work.  It may or may not be a derived work regardless of that.

 Some people seem to think the story has changed recently,

On both sides :-)  (for such large values of recently as 1995+ :-)

-- 
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member   ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?


Alexandre Oliva wrote:



Alexandre Oliva wrote:

This is fundamentally contradictory.  If you have to choose between
these two, you're choosing between promoting either FS or OSS. 



It is a problem the GPL creates.


That's a red herring.  The GPL has *zero* to do with it.

If we didn't have the GPL, or even copyright law, the movements would
still have different values and goals.  You're just confusing yourself
by bringing the GPL into the picture, and you might be confusing
others in the process.


The GPL, by not permitting redistribution unless restrictive terms on 
all components can be met, is the only license that I am aware of that 
causes this problem.  I suppose there could be others, but the GPL is 
the well-known instance.



I.e., you're promoting one in detriment of the other.  How can that
be promoting FOSS?



How would you propose dealing with it when your purpose is to promote
FOSS and as many choices as possible, then?


I've already explained that prmoting FOSS doesn't make sense for
starters. 


You've said that.  Your so-called explanation makes no sense to anyone 
who does not accept your misguided assumptions.



How about you step back and analyze what you mean by promoting FOSS,
like I have?


For me it means using/reusing/improving freely-available, well-tested 
code in all possible situations.  Everybody wins.  Under certain limited 
conditions, it even works with GPL encumbered code.



I believe they are misguided in applying restrictions that make it
impossible to use GPL code in many situations.


Red herring and false premise.


Sorry, but I happen to believe my opinion is as valid as yours.  Present 
some evidence that not permitting code reuse/redistribution/improvement 
has ever helped anyone if you want to get anywhere with that argument.



The OSS movement cares about popularity and convenience, so an
esential part of this movement is to accept, endorse and promote the
use of software that denies users their freedoms, when that is
convenient and can lure in more users.



'Luring' someone is a strange concept here. You seem to imply that
someone who has a choice to use a piece of software does not have the
same choice to replace it with another piece later.


That's correct, and that's precisely where the power that the Free
Software movement opposes stems from.


That's not the case and even if it were, the correct solution would
be to encourage the production of as many other choices as possible.
People always have the freedom to choose and change.


Except when they're lured in, and only realize they're trapped when
it's too late or too difficult to escape.  CQD.


It is only difficult to escape when equal/better choices don't exist. 
One of the reasons those other choices might not exist is that licenses 
that only permit code re-use under restrictive conditions like the GPL 
have prevented them from being created.



Do you see that a
step forward for one amounts to a step backward in the other?



Not at all.  The more choices you have the better. You can only go forward.


You're evaluating the scenario under your own system of value and
prejudices, not under the two very different systems of values of the
two movements I have described.


Yes, of course I use my own values.  I view those movements as cultish 
and illogical and having no evidence to support their claims.



IOW, it's circular logic, and the
conclusions are unrelated with the question or the premises.


There's plenty of evidence for the choices that a non-restrictive code 
base like the original TCP/IP implementation can produce, but no 
equivalent for GPL restrictions.


--
  Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-21 Thread Phil Meyer

Les Mikesell wrote:

...
It is only difficult to escape when equal/better choices don't exist.
One of the reasons those other choices might not exist is that
licenses that only permit code re-use under restrictive conditions
like the GPL have prevented them from being created.

Wow, some people refuse to have any sense of history.

Where is:
MBOS
CP/M
MP/M
OASYS
and so many others?

There used to be choices. There are no choices any more, and the only
reason that the UNIX derivatives and look-alikes even exist today is due
to licensing. If they could have been purchased and destroyed, they
would have, long ago.

Are there better choices besides MS and UNIX/Linux? That is a silly
question, because there are no others any more, and no commercial entity
in its right mind would suggest otherwise.

However, with the advent of personal processing, like UMPCs or smart
phones, that dynamic has again changed.

The dominant OS on smart phones is far and away still Symbian. MS only
has deep penetration in the states, and only for people who have never
tried anything else (mostly, IMO). In a competitive marketplace, no MS
OS would ever be purchased except by the uneducated.

This is a bit dated:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002906726_wirelessos03.html

This shows just the US, for a comparison:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/12/14/canalys-symbian-apple-iphone-already-leads-windows-mobile-in-us-market-share-q3-2007/

It is hard to find objective analysis, but on recent trips abroad, I
never saw an MS based smart phone besides those who worked in MS
oriented IT shops. But then I didn't stop everyone on the street
either, so YMMV.

In my current employment, all upper management have BB, and all PC
support guys have MS, and all other platform support guys have something
other than. Personally, I wouldn't trade my Centro for any MS based
phone I have seen, and the MS IT guys here are always cussing at their
phones, but blissfully ignorant of any alternatives. I just turn away
and happily look up contacts and dial with one hand. Of course, I carry
a Nokia N810 for music, books, surfing and to ssh into servers when needed.

Smart phones offer choice, and only MS uses the age old 'compatibility'
complaint in their marketing. No one else seems to need it, or want it.

Good Luck!

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?


Alexandre Oliva wrote:



Some licenses do allow their own terms to be replaced by the GPL,


True, but these are very rare.  GNU LGPL and the Brazilian LPG-AP v2,
so far unpublished, are the only examples that come to mind.

Most licenses that are compatible with the GPL are compatible just
because they don't conflict with the terms and conditions of the GPL
in any way, so distributing the work under the GPL (without removing
the original license) is in perfect accordance with the terms and
conditions of the original license.


but it's a one way trip and that copy of such code no longer has its
original license terms.


Can you back this up?  All the evidence I've got suggests the exact
opposite.


I thought you had just agreed with this in another posting. Of course 
the original copies of works covered by less restrictive licenses would 
remain available and there's next to no chance that the restriction 
would be enforced, but I can't find any way out of GPL requirements in 
the license once they have been applied.  That is, I think it is 
technically prohibited to cut a function out of a copy of code where the 
gpl work-as-a-whole coverage is effective and paste it into a work that 
will be distributed under non-gpl terms.  Only the copyright holder 
could enforce that but I don't see anywhere that it is explicitly 
allowed - or how it could be - within the GPL.



On the contrary, Linus clearly stated that a module was not
necessarily a derived work simply because it is loaded by the kernel
and uses the services of the kernel.


That's correct.  This is not the same as saying that, just because a
module is loaded by the kernel and uses its services, it is NOT a
derived work.  It may or may not be a derived work regardless of that.


Obviously - code could be included from other components, but that's 
equally true for any work.



Some people seem to think the story has changed recently,


On both sides :-)  (for such large values of recently as 1995+ :-)


I generally don't expect the truth to vary from day to day on this sort 
of issue, even for some moderately large number of days.


--
   Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Alexandre Oliva wrote:

 but it's a one way trip and that copy of such code no longer has its
 original license terms.

 Can you back this up?  All the evidence I've got suggests the exact
 opposite.

 I thought you had just agreed with this in another posting.

No, I first said it wouldn't make sense for an author to try to
enforce something that is permitted by the license s/he granted.
Then, in another posting, you proposed the idea above and asked for
confirmation, and then I responded explaining why I believe the exact
opposite holds, and that you probably thought what you did because of
your mistaken understanding as to how the GPL works.

 Of course the original copies of works covered by less restrictive
 licenses would remain available

That's not what I'm talking about.  Please re-read the message in
which you thought I agreed with the above, and follow up if you need
clarification on my position.

 Some people seem to think the story has changed recently,

 On both sides :-)  (for such large values of recently as 1995+ :-)

 I generally don't expect the truth to vary from day to day on this
 sort of issue, even for some moderately large number of days.

And yet you get the impression that Linus' statement you cited, from
back in 1995, changed the story in any way.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member   ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?


Alexandre Oliva wrote:

On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Alexandre Oliva wrote:



but it's a one way trip and that copy of such code no longer has its
original license terms.



Can you back this up?  All the evidence I've got suggests the exact
opposite.



I thought you had just agreed with this in another posting.


No, I first said it wouldn't make sense for an author to try to
enforce something that is permitted by the license s/he granted.
Then, in another posting, you proposed the idea above and asked for
confirmation, and then I responded explaining why I believe the exact
opposite holds, and that you probably thought what you did because of
your mistaken understanding as to how the GPL works.


Practically speaking I follow your argument that the covered work could 
be treated as though explicitly dual-licensed - and kept separate. 
However, I still don't see how the GPL requirements are technically 
removed once you've accepted the license that applies them to any 
covered component of a work.  Aren't you obligated by accepting this 
license to observe its terms which explicitly extend to the work-as-a-whole?



Of course the original copies of works covered by less restrictive
licenses would remain available


That's not what I'm talking about.  Please re-read the message in
which you thought I agreed with the above, and follow up if you need
clarification on my position.


Please do explain how you can accept a license, then subsequently ignore 
the terms.  If you aren't redistributing any part under the GPL, you 
might ignore the license since you don't have to accept it in that case.



Some people seem to think the story has changed recently,



On both sides :-)  (for such large values of recently as 1995+ :-)



I generally don't expect the truth to vary from day to day on this
sort of issue, even for some moderately large number of days.


And yet you get the impression that Linus' statement you cited, from
back in 1995, changed the story in any way.


No, I always understood the fact that modules are not necessarily 
derived works and they simply 'use' the system interface as permitted by 
the Linux license.  Those quotes from Linux and Eben Moglen just removed 
any possible doubt.


--
  Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 However, I still don't see how the GPL requirements are
 technically removed once you've accepted the license that applies them
 to any covered component of a work.

The requirements aren't removed.  They don't have to be.  You have
permission to use that code through another license, subject to other
conditions.

The license is just a way for you to tell a copyright holder who
decides to sue you to get lost because you got permission to do what
you're doing.  AFAIK, it doesn't matter if A claims that she provided
you a work containing P under license X that says you can't do
something, if you have a license Y from B that applies to all of P
that says you can.  B gave you a license for P, so A just doesn't have
a case.  But again IANAL.

 Aren't you obligated by accepting this license to observe its terms
 which explicitly extend to the work-as-a-whole?

You're not even required to accept the license.  Even if you do, it
grants you certain permissions over the whole and every part of it,
but it doesn't take away any other permissions you may have or receive
over the whole or any part of it.

 Please do explain how you can accept a license, then subsequently
 ignore the terms.

You're not ignoring them.  Remember, there aren't restrictions in it.
It says you can do X, Y and Z.  It doesn't say you can't do A or
B, it just refrains from saying you can, and copyright law says you
can't.  But if you have obtained permission to do A or B, nothing in
the GPL stops you from doing just that.

 No, I always understood the fact that modules are not necessarily
 derived works and they simply 'use' the system interface as permitted
 by the Linux license.

The and appears to be conflating two separate issues.  They may be
related, but they're not the same.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member   ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

On Jul 21, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
 
 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
 This is fundamentally contradictory.  If you have to choose between
 these two, you're choosing between promoting either FS or OSS. 

 It is a problem the GPL creates.

 That's a red herring.  The GPL has *zero* to do with it.

 the GPL is the well-known instance.

The GPL meets both the FS and the OSS definition.  Again, bringing it
into this argument would be a red herring even if you refrained from
your proven-wrong and now proven-to-confuse-yourself misunderstanding
that the GPL imposes restrictions.

 How about you step back and analyze what you mean by promoting FOSS,
 like I have?

 For me it means using/reusing/improving freely-available, well-tested
 code in all possible situations.

And where did you get this idea that this is what Free (and|or) Open
Source Software are about?

 I believe they are misguided in applying restrictions that make it
 impossible to use GPL code in many situations.

 Red herring and false premise.

 Sorry, but I happen to believe my opinion is as valid as yours.

You can believe it is valid, it just so happens to be irrelevant to
this debate about the differences between the FS and the OSS
movements, because GPL is accepted and promoted by both.

 Present some evidence that not permitting code
 reuse/redistribution/improvement has ever helped anyone if you want to
 get anywhere with that argument.

Not permitting this would be contradictory to both the Free Software
definition and the Open Source definition.  This is getting silly.

Permitting them under certain conditions and requirements is what all
the tens (hundreds?) of licenses that meet definitions is all about.

The conditions and requirements of some of these licenses at times may
feel too cumbersome to those who don't share the same values and
goals.  That's fine, and by design.  They have caused more software to
be brought into the corpus of software available as Free Software and
as Open-Source Software that otherwise might have been made harmful
proprietary software, and in other cases they have prevented or
significantly delayed the release of harmful proprietary software.

 It is only difficult to escape when equal/better choices don't
 exist.

'fraid you've never tried to move to a superior Free Software
platform, away from an application that uses a proprietary format,
that nobody else supports and yet you've stored years of data in it,

 You're evaluating the scenario under your own system of value and
 prejudices, not under the two very different systems of values of the
 two movements I have described.

 Yes, of course I use my own values.

If you're incapable of or unwilling to put yourself in a position of
understanding other values, as necessary to answer a question such as
do you notice the difference between these two movements?, there's
no point in my wasting time with that.

 IOW, it's circular logic, and the
 conclusions are unrelated with the question or the premises.

 There's plenty of evidence for the choices that a non-restrictive code
 base like the original TCP/IP implementation can produce, but no
 equivalent for GPL restrictions.

IOW, while pretending to answer one point, you're not even making an
effort to understand that point, but rather trying to go back to an
apparent fixation on an unrelated point.

Sorry, I don't want to go back there, we're through with that one.
Please enjoy the debate.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member   ¡Sé Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?


Alexandre Oliva wrote:


Aren't you obligated by accepting this license to observe its terms
which explicitly extend to the work-as-a-whole?


You're not even required to accept the license.  Even if you do, it
grants you certain permissions over the whole and every part of it,
but it doesn't take away any other permissions you may have or receive
over the whole or any part of it.


I can't find that exception.


Please do explain how you can accept a license, then subsequently
ignore the terms.


You're not ignoring them.  Remember, there aren't restrictions in it.
It says you can do X, Y and Z.  It doesn't say you can't do A or
B, it just refrains from saying you can, and copyright law says you
can't.  But if you have obtained permission to do A or B, nothing in
the GPL stops you from doing just that.


I don't think you are talking about the GPL here.  You may have the 
right to redistribute those portions that are separately available under 
no-GPL terms, but if you've agreed to the GPL terms covering that copy, 
you have agreed not to, except under the GPL terms and per section 2b:


   You must cause any work that you distribute or publish,
that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the
Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at
no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

Yes, you may not have to accept the GPL if you only redistribute parts 
where other licenses permit it, but that's an unlikely loophole.




No, I always understood the fact that modules are not necessarily
derived works and they simply 'use' the system interface as permitted
by the Linux license.


The and appears to be conflating two separate issues.  They may be
related, but they're not the same.


There has never been a clear definition of what constitutes a 
work-as-a-whole or makes it a 'derived work'.  A common interpretation 
is everything that runs together in one process space, but the kernel is 
a special case since it typically encompasses the memory space of all 
running programs.  So, you need special rules to determine what is/isn't 
derived.


--
  Les Mikesell
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-21 Thread Alan Cox

 The GPL meets both the FS and the OSS definition.  

News to me. GPLv3 has clauses which are specifically aimed at certain
uses, and clauses which contain systematic biases in favour of people who
have certain long standing arrangements with Microsoft.

It's not IMHO an OSS licence. Free yes, OSS no. Something I imagine RMS
is not too worried about ?


Alan

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-21 Thread jeff moe

Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler at chello.at writes:

 
 Alexandre Oliva aoliva at redhat.com writes:
  If you find any such problems in BLAG 8 (never formally released)
  or BLAG 9 (released easier today), please report them.
 
 Here's some I found at a quick glance:
 
 http://www.blagblagblag.org/9/BLAG/
 RPMS.fedora/zd1211-firmware-1.4-1.noarch.rpm
 Yes, it says it's GPLv2. Now try looking at the source code... See also the 
 Fedora review request (where I raised that point,
 wondering if this is legal to 
 redistribute at all):
 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=221675#c17
 
 http://www.blagblagblag.org/9/BLAG/
 RPMS.fedora/midisport-firmware-1.2-1.noarch.rpm
 Claims to be GPLv2, but only the firmware loader is GPLv2
 (actually dual GPLv2 
 or BSD). The package also contains firmware files (in /lib/firmware)
 under the following license:
  The firmware files (*.ihx) are copyrighted by Midiman, and can be used
  and redistributed only as part of this package.


Their %{LICENSE} tags read:
zd1211-firmware GPLv2
midisport-firmware GPLv2+

These have been removed from our 9 and BLAGHEAD (rawhide) repositories.
Presumably Fedora would want to change the tag to GPLv2 and redistributable or
whatever the case may be.

Thanks for tracking them down. If you notice any others, please let us know.

-Jeff

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?


Alexandre Oliva wrote:



This is fundamentally contradictory.  If you have to choose between
these two, you're choosing between promoting either FS or OSS. 




the GPL is the well-known instance.


The GPL meets both the FS and the OSS definition.


The GPL can only meet it under very limited circumstances.  It does not 
provide the freedom to redistribute covered works improved by adding 
code under different terms.



Again, bringing it
into this argument would be a red herring even if you refrained from
your proven-wrong and now proven-to-confuse-yourself misunderstanding
that the GPL imposes restrictions.


There is no confusion beyond the lack of a specific definition of a 
work-as-a-whole.  But however that is defined, it does not provide such 
freedom, and the lack of such freedom is harmful.



How about you step back and analyze what you mean by promoting FOSS,
like I have?



For me it means using/reusing/improving freely-available, well-tested
code in all possible situations.


And where did you get this idea that this is what Free (and|or) Open
Source Software are about?


That's what I say it is about.  Is there a Pope-of-Software who is the 
only person with the right to make decisions?  Why have a discussion if 
I can't present my own view?



You can believe it is valid, it just so happens to be irrelevant to
this debate about the differences between the FS and the OSS
movements, because GPL is accepted and promoted by both.


The lack of freedom comes when the GPL is involved with any other code, 
a situation you seem to ignore.  A near-infinite number of possibilities 
are not permitted.



Permitting them under certain conditions and requirements is what all
the tens (hundreds?) of licenses that meet definitions is all about.


And the GPL fails to permit under many conditions, denying your freedoms.


It is only difficult to escape when equal/better choices don't
exist.


'fraid you've never tried to move to a superior Free Software
platform, away from an application that uses a proprietary format,
that nobody else supports and yet you've stored years of data in it,


Red Herring.  It's not necessary to do that.


Yes, of course I use my own values.


If you're incapable of or unwilling to put yourself in a position of
understanding other values, as necessary to answer a question such as
do you notice the difference between these two movements?, there's
no point in my wasting time with that.


I do notice the difference, hence I know that the GPL is the one that 
most often does not permit freedom compared to any other set of 
combinations.



IOW, it's circular logic, and the
conclusions are unrelated with the question or the premises.



There's plenty of evidence for the choices that a non-restrictive code
base like the original TCP/IP implementation can produce, but no
equivalent for GPL restrictions.


IOW, while pretending to answer one point, you're not even making an
effort to understand that point, but rather trying to go back to an
apparent fixation on an unrelated point.


The point is not unrelated.  The point is that the GPL does not provide 
freedom even in the simple circumstance of including a bit of covered 
code along with many other things that are OSS.  And the things that it 
prevents by not also providing the freedom to be included with 
proprietary works might have been as useful to everyone as TCP/IP.


--
  Les Mikesell
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

SHUT THE F*CK UP ALREADY!!! Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-21 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Seriously, you freaking people are never gonna agree, and that's fine.  We
are not here to watch zealots clog up our inboxes with this garbage.

Take it off list, or meet in the alley out back and handle it with your
favorite dueling weapons or whatever, but PLEASE, SHUT UP.

Jeez!
-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-21 Thread Thomas Cameron

On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 04:35 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
 The OSS movement cares about popularity and convenience, so an
 esential part of this movement is to accept, endorse and promote the
 use of software that denies users their freedoms, when that is
 convenient and can lure in more users.

That is complete and utter CRAP.

http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd clearly contradicts that.

From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html:


Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program, for any purpose.

Freedom 1 is the freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to
your needs. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Freedom 2 is the freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your
neighbor.

Freedom 3 is the freedom to improve the program, and release your
improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access
to the source code is a precondition for this.


Those same freedoms are protected by opensource.org's requirements.
While there is not a one-to-one mapping, FSF's freedom 0 is covered by
OSI's rules 1, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10.  FSF's freedom 1 is covered by OSI's
rules 2, 3 and 4.  FSF's freedom 2 is covered by OSI's rules 2,3 and 4.
FSF'd freedom 3 is covered by at least OSI's rule 3.

Don't take my word for it, read it yourself:


1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the
software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing
programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a
royalty or other fee for such sale.


2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is
not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means
of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction
cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source
code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the
program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed.
Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator
are not allowed.


3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
original software.


4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified
form only if the license allows the distribution of patch files with
the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time.
The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from
modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a
different name or version number from the original software.


5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
persons.


6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a
specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program
from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.


7. Distribution of License
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program
is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license
by those parties.


8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's
being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is
extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the
terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is
redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in
conjunction with the original software distribution.


9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license
must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium
must be open-source software.


10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual
technology or style of interface.


Open Source software as defined opensource.org clearly also meets the
requirements of the four freedoms that the FSF espouses.

I swear, this reminds me of the Sunni and the Shi'a or the Catholics and
the Protestants.  Each pair believes in fundamentally the same thing but
the extremists in each group is convinced the other is damned and should
be fought.  It's ludicrous.  It is damaging, and it's
counter-productive.

-- 
Thomas

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: SHUT THE F*CK UP ALREADY!!! Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-21 Thread max bianco

2008/7/21 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Seriously, you freaking people are never gonna agree, and that's fine.  We
 are not here to watch zealots clog up our inboxes with this garbage.

 Take it off list, or meet in the alley out back and handle it with your
 favorite dueling weapons or whatever, but PLEASE, SHUT UP.

 Jeez!

Is the asterisk in the subject line supposed to confuse me? Its quite
obvious what it means, why not spell it out like an adult?
or better yet learn how to use mail filters. Nobody is putting a gun
to your head. I don't see anyone telling the people that consistently
whine about KDE to Shut up already!! There have been any number of
threads about its current deficiencies. They irritated the hell out of
me too. I just ignore them, for the most part, and get on with my
life.
-- 
If opinions were really like assholes we'd each have just one

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: SHUT THE F*CK UP ALREADY!!! Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-21 Thread g


max bianco wrote:
snip

Is the asterisk in the subject line supposed to confuse me? Its quite


now we have 5 'gnu/linux' threads.

will we see 6???


--

tc,hago.

g
.

in a free world without fences, who needs gates.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: SHUT THE F*CK UP ALREADY!!! Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

2008-07-21 Thread g


Ed Greshko wrote:
snip


Sure, why not?  They all make about the same level of sense.


true. but, more sense than the *one* who got these 3 going.

--

tc,hago.

g
.

in a free world without fences, who needs gates.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?