Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 07:44:55 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: Le Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 06:34:52PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : In the meanwhile, what I was proposing was that the licensing of the Debian Open Use Logo should not create a deliberate incompatibility with either the GPLv2 or the GPLv3. Hi Francesco, Hi Charles, The Debian Open Use Logo without « Debian » is still distributed under a persmissive license on www.debian.org/logos, so anybody who worries about license incompatibilities can make a backup now, and redistribute it under its permissive license later if it looks useful. This is certainly true, and I acknowledged that in my previous reply [1], where I mentioned the Wayback Machine of archive.org (for example the snapshot taken on June 2011, the 29th [2] should be usable as a backup for the Expat-licensed logo). [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/09/msg00056.html [2] http://web.archive.org/web/20110629034656/http://www.debian.org/logos/ What I was worrying about was that: (A) in the future, anyone who visits the official web site [3] (without searching further elsewhere) will get the the Open Use Logo without Debian under a much more restrictive license (B) the Open Use Logo with Debian (which has been non-free so far) will become DFSG-free, but GPLv2-incompatible [3] http://www.debian.org/logos/ I think that (A) looks like a regression and (B) is a poor licensing choice. Have a nice day, The same to you! Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpN6qK6n5RU2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?
http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txtSo what are the supposed weakness of both versions of the GPL?
Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:52:58 + Clint Adams wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:31:55PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: For reasons I won't elaborate on here (they would drive us far away from the topic under discussion), I consider the GNU GPL v3 as a license with a broken copyleft mechanism (at least for some aspects). Hence, whenever I want to dodge these weaknesses, I license my works under the GNU GPL v2 only. I am not the only one, possibly for similar reasons. For reasons I won't bother explaining, the GNU (L)GPL v2 is a flawed license. By licensing something as v2 or later, one allows those flaws to propagate. By licensing something as v2 ONLY, you achieve more than that: you lock those flaws in with no remedy other than relicensing by the copyright holders, and you create a deliberate incompatibility with anything under current or future versions of the GNU (L)GPL. This harms our community. Therefore, if a side effect of licensing things under LGPLv3+ is to help the v2-only crowd realize that their stubborn, antisocial behavior is misguided, and perhaps inspire them to stop spreading FUD, then I think we should embrace it. Don't you? Please note that your argument could be reversed, as in: === For reasons I won't bother explaining, the GNU (L)GPL v3 is a flawed license. By licensing something as v2 or later, one allows those flaws to propagate. By licensing something as v3 or later, you achieve more than that: you lock those flaws in with no remedy other than re-licensing by the copyright holders (until a hypothetical saner GNU GPL is published by the FSF, which won't happen soon, I am afraid), and you create a deliberate incompatibility with anything under the GNU GPL v2. This harms our community. Therefore, if a side effect of licensing things under GPL v2 only is to help the v3-or-later crowd realize that their stubborn, antisocial behavior is misguided, and perhaps inspire them to stop spreading FUD, then I think we should embrace it. Don't you? === Do you see the symmetry? You basically claim that a deliberate incompatibility with the GPLv2 should be created, because the GPLv2 is too weak a copyleft in some respects and because using the GPLv2 without the or later mechanism creates a deliberate incompatibility with the GPLv3. I acknowledge that the GPLv2 has some weaknesses that are cured by the GPLv3, but, at the same time, I think that the GPLv3 has other weaknesses (not present in the GPLv2) which undermine its copyleft mechanism. After participating in the public GPLv3 draft review process, and after seeing other harmful things done by the FSF (GFDL, AfferoGPL, ...), I stopped trusting the FSF to publish good licenses. Hence, whenever I want to avoid seeing my work mixed or incorporated into non-free works, I choose the GNU GPL v2 without the or later mechanism. Sorry, but it's not me, it's the FSF that harms our community, by publishing flawed licenses and by no longer deserving to be trusted about keeping its own promises (GPLv2, Section 9: new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version). All these problems will be fixed, when (and if) the FSF releases a new version of the GNU GPL (v4? v5? ...) able to cure the weaknesses (and the other minor flaws) of the GNU GPL v3, without introducing new flaws (the FSF also has to stop promoting the GFDL, the AfferoGPL, ...). In the meanwhile, what I was proposing was that the licensing of the Debian Open Use Logo should not create a deliberate incompatibility with either the GPLv2 or the GPLv3. On the other hand, you are saying that cutting the GPLv2 out is a good thing to do. Sorry, but I have to disagree... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpT3LMYt6k6A.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:00:08 +0200 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:31:55PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
There are two issues with your previous reply:
* it was not clear that your request for more info also included
questions about the particular copyright licenses to be chosen
YMMV, I guess.
Well, it was not clear to me, at least.
It's obviously possible that I misread your words: I apologize, if this
is the case.
* the reply itself was only sent to debian-project (something that you
have just done again...), despite my explicit request to be Cced on
replies
I'm not sure it is correct to call this issue. You asked the
*courtesy* of Cc:-ing you on replies. I generally try to be courteous,
but it's easy to forget about these things when they are not
automated. I'm sorry, but I forgot (again) to Cc you. I humbly suggest
that you use headers like Mail-{Followup,Reply}-To in the future. That
would decrease the chances that someone forget about respecting your Cc
courtesy requests.
I heard all sorts of things about Mail-{Followup,Reply}-To headers.
Some claim that one of those two headers are the Right Way™ to ask to
be in Cc on replies, and the other one is the Wrong Way™.
Some claim the same with swapped roles for the two headers.
Some claim that neither work as intended, and the request should be
explicit in the message body.
In all this uncertainty, I got used to follow the last strategy
(explicit request in the message body), since my MUA of choice
(Sylpheed) does not handle the above mentioned headers in a practical
automated way.
I am sorry, if this created any problems to you.
[...]
I am really disappointed by this decision and I hope you will
reconsider.
I'm sorry about your disappointment, but I'm not inclined to reconsider.
[...]
If you feel strongly about this (as you clearly do), I remind you that
the right path to escalate is not starting a thread against the decision
on -project and/or -legal, but rather propose to override the decision
via the appropriate Debian mechanisms.
I suppose you are referring to a GR (as explained in the Debian
Constitution, section 4).
As you probably know, I am not a Debian Developer.
Hence I cannot propose a GR.
I thought that the only things I could do were: either persuading you
to change your mind, or, failing that, pointing the issue out to other
Debian Developers who may feel the same as me.
That's why I started a thread on debian-project and debian-legal...
I hope this clarifies.
--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
. Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpRXB0zIWxpT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?
Le Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 06:34:52PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : In the meanwhile, what I was proposing was that the licensing of the Debian Open Use Logo should not create a deliberate incompatibility with either the GPLv2 or the GPLv3. Hi Francesco, The Debian Open Use Logo without « Debian » is still distributed under a persmissive license on www.debian.org/logos, so anybody who worries about license incompatibilities can make a backup now, and redistribute it under its permissive license later if it looks useful. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2012094424.ga30...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:31:55PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
There are two issues with your previous reply:
* it was not clear that your request for more info also included
questions about the particular copyright licenses to be chosen
YMMV, I guess.
* the reply itself was only sent to debian-project (something that you
have just done again...), despite my explicit request to be Cced on
replies
I'm not sure it is correct to call this issue. You asked the
*courtesy* of Cc:-ing you on replies. I generally try to be courteous,
but it's easy to forget about these things when they are not
automated. I'm sorry, but I forgot (again) to Cc you. I humbly suggest
that you use headers like Mail-{Followup,Reply}-To in the future. That
would decrease the chances that someone forget about respecting your Cc
courtesy requests.
But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a copyleft
*copyright* license is indeed the right choice to make. Even assuming
this, I am deeply disappointed by the GPLv2-incompatible license
choice.
[…]
I repeat: I strongly recommend to *at least* choose the GNU LGPL v2.1
or later!
Your disappointment was clear to me, and I'm sorry about it. But in
choices that have alternatives, it is often the case that someone will
be disappointed by each of the possible choices. In this specific case,
I've *considered* your comments and investigated each of them further.
But in the end I had to make a decision regarding a specific asset of
the Debian project, and did that. I've weighted the drawbacks that you
mentioned (modulo the ones I completely disagree with --- like your
allegation in this mail about the broken copyleft mechanism in GPLv3)
and considered them not severe enough to choose otherwise.
I am really disappointed by this decision and I hope you will
reconsider.
I'm sorry about your disappointment, but I'm not inclined to reconsider.
In fact, the decision has now been implemented as a SPI board resolution
last week:
http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/2012/2012-09-07.rtb.1/
I haven't yet done a proper announcement, simply because I yet have to
prepare the patch to update the logo license page on the Debian website.
If you feel strongly about this (as you clearly do), I remind you that
the right path to escalate is not starting a thread against the decision
on -project and/or -legal, but rather propose to override the decision
via the appropriate Debian mechanisms.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:17:53 +0200 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 09:31:41PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: I am following up to your August bits from the DPL, since I still have to understand why it was suggested to dual license the Open Use Logo with Debian under LGPLv3+ / CC-by-sa-v3.0. I have already asked in https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/08/msg00017.html but I have received no answer for this question. As I've pointed out in my reply to that, I've collected your comments though and asked more info about that. There are two issues with your previous reply: * it was not clear that your request for more info also included questions about the particular copyright licenses to be chosen * the reply itself was only sent to debian-project (something that you have just done again...), despite my explicit request to be Cced on replies In particular, I've asked the possibility about relicensing under more liberal licenses (such as Expat) and I've been advised not to do that. I don't have a detailed argumentary to share, as the discussion has been informal, but the main argument is that a license that basically allows you to do whatever you want is a bad mix with marks (be them registered or not). This explains the general choice of copyleft. I still do not understand why a copyleft mechanism in the *copyright* license should be needed in order to protect a *trademark*. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a copyleft *copyright* license is indeed the right choice to make. Even assuming this, I am deeply disappointed by the GPLv2-incompatible license choice. Anyway, as long as a copyleft is needed, I think that a LGPLv3+ / CC-by-sa-v3.0 dual license would be a poor choice, since it's GPLv3-compatible, but GPLv2-incompatible. Regarding the version of the license (which I've been advised to choose), instead of reasoning about abstract issue, I've reviewed some of the usual documentation material and also asked [1] the teams that IMHO would be potentially impacted the most by the change. I've asked explicitly if they had issues with the license choice, including the version. Having got no reasons to choose otherwise I've ended up deciding, under my sole responsibility of course, for the aforementioned licenses. For reasons I won't elaborate on here (they would drive us far away from the topic under discussion), I consider the GNU GPL v3 as a license with a broken copyleft mechanism (at least for some aspects). Hence, whenever I want to dodge these weaknesses, I license my works under the GNU GPL v2 only. I am not the only one, possibly for similar reasons. Having an Open Use Logo with Debian dual-licensed under the GNU LGPL v3 and the CC-by-sa-v3.0 would make it incompatible with works licensed under the GNU GPL v2 only. This would be a very poor licensing choice for the Debian Project, in my humble opinion. I repeat: I strongly recommend to *at least* choose the GNU LGPL v2.1 or later! [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-www/2012/08/msg00115.html Reading this cited thread, I understand that the plan is also (for simplicity and uniformity) to re-license the Open Use Logo without Debian under LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0, thus regressing from the current situation where it is available under the much more permissive Expat license! This means that, in the future, someone who does not know better and does not search for past versions of the logo page (for instance on the Wayback Machine of archive.org) will get the Open Use Logo without Debian under a much more restrictive license than today. I am really disappointed by this decision and I hope you will reconsider. P.S.: I am Ccing debian-project and also debian-legal (since some interested people there may have missed the news) -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpk0BCx9oe5s.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:31:55PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: For reasons I won't elaborate on here (they would drive us far away from the topic under discussion), I consider the GNU GPL v3 as a license with a broken copyleft mechanism (at least for some aspects). Hence, whenever I want to dodge these weaknesses, I license my works under the GNU GPL v2 only. I am not the only one, possibly for similar reasons. For reasons I won't bother explaining, the GNU (L)GPL v2 is a flawed license. By licensing something as v2 or later, one allows those flaws to propagate. By licensing something as v2 ONLY, you achieve more than that: you lock those flaws in with no remedy other than relicensing by the copyright holders, and you create a deliberate incompatibility with anything under current or future versions of the GNU (L)GPL. This harms our community. Therefore, if a side effect of licensing things under LGPLv3+ is to help the v2-only crowd realize that their stubborn, antisocial behavior is misguided, and perhaps inspire them to stop spreading FUD, then I think we should embrace it. Don't you? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120920215258.ga21...@scru.org
