On Mar 14, 2023, bill-auger <bill-auger@peers.community> wrote: > probably would not have raised this question, if the FSD entry > for 'yggdrasil' was not still pending approval after two years,
I see. Yeah, it would be good to hear a formal position from the FSF. But this is probably the busiest week of the year for FSF staff, because of LibrePlanet this coming weekend, so it's really poor timing to try to get their attention onto other matters. Now, in order for the FSF to take and announce such a formal position, I suspect it may not be just a matter of writing something up and publishing. IIUC, it would require an attorney's opinion, and IIRC the position at the FSF that used to do this job was vacated in the first year of the pandemic, and last I heard the search for someone to fill those shoes was still underway (though my knowledge as a close outsider may be outdated). I'm sure it is frustrating to all parties involved that this is taking so long, but some more patience will be needed: an opinion on the matter that was not backed by this kind of legal counsel wouldn't move us any further on the matter, would it? > with no discussion evident - so some discussion is in order - > why has it not been accepted? Besides the difficulties above, I'd dare guess that maybe it's a case in which it's not even clear why or whether there's a problem to be solved, or why a flag was raised to begin with. I base that suggestion on my own puzzling at the issue when I first read your first email in this thread a few days ago. But then, years ago, I served as a volunteer in FSF's licensing advice team, so I'm well-versed on free software licensing matters and FSF's opinions, and it was often the case that issues that people found confusing were transparent to me. Maybe this is one of those cases? Or maybe it's a case of the FSF being super careful about unsettled law, more so because there's (ongoing?) litigation surrouding a related matter? (I vaguely recall reading news about a lawsuit about a license that added restrictions to the GPL, but the details escape me) > the FSD and FSDG should never be in conflict I'm not sure what you mean here. There are cases in which a piece of software may qualify as Free Software without meeting the requirements of the FSDG, and those are intended to be so. Is this the sort of conflict you meant? Or something else? > that is as i assumed - but if a distributor chooses to drop the > extra permissions or restrictions per GPLv3 section 7, shouldnt > that entail to literally remove the extra terms from the license > file? That's not necessarily the case. That removal would in theory take away from downstream recipients certain possibilities that the permissions granted, but for the case of redistribution, only the upstream licensors would be able to enforce the license, and it is not likely that they would set out to enforce the narrower terms just because some redistributor chose to drop them. It's not even obvious that they would win such a lawsuit, since they have licensed the additional permissions to the public at large, and anyone could defend by claiming to have used the upstream version instead, or relied on those permissions. It would be different if a distributor were also a contributor, having a copyright interest on the version it distributes under the narrower terms, that does not apply to the upstream version. Here, the change of licensing terms would be relevant in that this distributor could be able to enforce the narrower terms, but ISTM that failing to modify the licensing terms to remove the additional permissions would indeed extend those permissions to downstream recipients. It might be confusing, but neither of these cases seems wrong. Claiming to distribute something under say the LGPL or the GPL is not wrong, even if the program is effectively available under dual or multiple licenses, and additional permissions, as defined by GPLv3, are not very much (if at all) unlike dual licensing between the original GPLv3 and GPLv3 + additional permissions. Given the considerations about enforcement above, stating only GPLv3 is not wrong, even if incomplete, any more than stating it's GPLv3 when the terms allow distribution under later versions of the GPL. GPLv3+ would encompass that information, but that additional permissions (to distribute under later versions) is important and valuable but not critical. > unless i believed that the FSF would confirm the > interpretations of volunteers, when those projects will > inevitably challenge the interpretations *nod*, yeah, it makes sense to wait for an official position. > could easily avoid it with a few public words The concern you raise is legitimate and valid, but you appear to underestimate the difficulty of performing the legal analyses required to back these few words. Until then, the recommendation to refrain from distributing the package identified as a potential problem seems as sound as it can get. Otherwise, redistributing under the GPL packages received under the GPL, in compliance with its terms, can probably be counted on in general. > if i did not enjoy working on parabola so much, if i were doing > it only "for the cause" (the FSF's cause) I wouldn't put it that way. It's our movement, our cause. The FSF is an important part of the movement, but I don't see that it "owns" the cause. When we volunteer our efforts to the movement, even when it's some activity the FSF organizes, we do (or IMHO should do) so for our own collective sake. Still, I can relate with your dissatisfaction, and share in the lamenting that this has been so. I appreciate your sustained efforts and dedication to the cause, and thank you for them. I also appreciate the FSF's, and thank it for them. Our movement has been through some particularly challenging times, and I hope we can keep on counting on your support, tolerance and patience with these difficulties a while longer. Restating demands that still can't be met due to circumstances that are outside the control of the demanded party, or adding to the pressure about them, unfortunately neither fills the position nor qualifies other staff to issue the legal opinion that would back the demanded statement. Even after the position is filled, there will surely be quite a backlog to go through, so please bear with them. Thank you very much, -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>
