On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:49:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > > Doesn't the fact that we are totally geared towards a target > > > system that is Debian matter?
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote: > > Actually, it does make a difference -- we're not in violation of the > > GPL for any instance where we're distributing .debs to users of debian > > systems. On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 03:53:28PM -0700, John Galt wrote: > Yeah, but wouldn't that be in violation of DFSG 8: > > The rights attached to the program must not depend on the > program's being part of a Debian system. Only if you've been consuming large quantities of hallucinogens. The GPL doesn't even mention Debian. > Basically, if the license only is satisfied by a part of Debian, said > part not being transferred with the individual files, it looks as if > the rights attached to the individual files DO depend on being part of > a Debian system. Like it or not, this reading is exactly where RMS's > head is at on this issue. Can we really expect others to follow the > DFSG when we do so only when convenient? DFSG 8 later goes on to talk > about distribution IAW the license, so we're covered, but I'm not so > sure that splitting hairs of our own definitions is such a good idea. Last I heard, we were having trouble convincing RMS of this idea. Now he's wrong because this is his idea? Cute. [Or should I be saying "Wow... pretty colors"?] > > Different issue. The GPL appears to claim that you must distribute > > a copy of the license with the binaries, even when you ship the source > > separately. > > WITH or WITHIN? Actually, the preposition used in section 1 of the GPL is "ON". [Last time I checked, "ON" has something on the order of 30 definitions. I'm not sure that Chris Waters "the source is a part of the package" approach is mentioned anywhere in the dictionary, however.] > If it's WITH, wouldn't a copy of COPYING in each > directory (except non-free :) and a dependency on > /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL cover us? If it's WITHIN, we have the can > of worms that's open ATM. This is the real question. What will satisfy > the FSF? Not what does the FSF want, but what will they walk away from > this mess thinking that they got all that they could from it and falling > under my definition of fair: "a fair solution is one that pisses everyone > off equally". On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 02:55:25PM -0700, John Galt wrote: > > > The doctrine you're citing could have been that the moon was made > > > of green cheese for all of the citation you'd done in the past. > > > Furthermore, there is still 17USC507b: The FSF may be denied > > > relief at all in the case of Debian. It hardly seems right that > > > where a statutory limit has been reached, you are prevented relief > > > against others. Basically, Debian is now "grandfathered in" > > > because of a snafu: EvilCorp is not. Go bother EvilCorp. > > > > That only works if we stopped distributing such things at least > > three years ago. > > I think that good faith falls in here somewhere. Basically if we > distributed things in good faith for three years, despite the > fact that we violated the GPL UNKNOWINGLY, we'd be allowed by law > to continue, but we couldn't transfer the rights. Think of it as > squatters rights for IP. Close. But, good faith wouldn't apply where the copyright holder has pointed out a violation, which is then ignored. Fortunately, things aren't very severe right now. And, certainly, I think that if we could pull a solution together by the time that Woody freezes, that would indicate good faith. -- Raul
