On 8/18/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello,
>
> As a core member, if it were up to me, we would ditch GPL all together.
> I don't subscribe to the ideology present within it nor do I drink RMS
> brand kool aid.
The more I have thought about this, the more I would agree. In fact, I
would not be opposed to using some compatible bridge license for future
work. We might be able to change the license to any other type of license
if we all decided to now since we are rewriting anyway (provided that the
work as a whole could still be licensed under the GPL until 2.0). However,
I *do* think we would ideally want to stick to OSI-approved licenses, and
the translations might be a problem (but they are already getting out of
date).
Personally I like the FSF's discussion of the 4 basic software freedoms.
However, I also have some *strong* reservations about ourselves being tied
to licenses released by an organization which seems to have inconsistant
standards relating to these Freedoms. (I see this Freedom as an economic as
well as a social good.)
For example, I do not see how one can, by any objective standard consider
the current Affero GPL v3 discussion draft to embody these freedoms since
the predominant reading seems to be that modification of the source code
creates a contract relating to future use of the software in terms of
offering to the public (and therefore banning certain configurations of
other network components if they interfere with the source offering to users
over a network). While I have been aggressive at pushing work into licenses
I consider to be Free, I do not consider such a license to meet these
standards when it possibly imposes requirements of *use* of derivative works
not only relating to the software itself but other network components.
I actually think the GPL v2 is not a bad license. I have a number of
reservations about v3 including the fact that it is unreasonably vague,
extends the license in ways I consider to be of questionable Freedom, and so
forth. However, at the moment it doesn't really have any advantage to us.
Does it mean that people can't take our code and re-release changed versions
under incompatible licenses? Not at present.
In short, keeping with the GPL v2 or later doesn't stop us from subsidizing
the competition in a one-way relationship until we decide to upgrade the
license. So I am not entirely sure that it does much more for us than a
BSD-style license except push us towards upgrading. Not that this *really*
matters either. The only issue is that of community, and licenses are
secondary provided that they ensure the community members appropriate
freedoms relating to our release..
Does that mean that I am anti FOSS software? Hardly, in fact you would
> be hard pressed to find a larger advocate. What is does mean, is that I
> am a realist and I am pragmatic about it. Software is just a tool. It is
> not a political fight.
Just to summarize-- I agree with the advocacy of Freedom with regard to
software. However, this exists in an inherent tension to the ideas of
copyleft (something I do not believe the FSF understands, given the current
approaches relating to the Affero GPL).
Nor is software or the "right" to use software or
> see the code an actual "right". That is a fallacy invented by RMS.
No, but it is both an economic and a social good (probably the basis for
RMS's approach). :-)
My larger concern is that there have always been areas where the FSF is
willing to compromise Freedom in order to make their advocacy job easier,
starting with adding invarient sections clauses to the Gnu Free
Documentation License with the express intent of forcing the GNU Manifesto
with the Emacs manual (source: RMS email to debian-legal explaining his
reasoning) and continuing through questionable restrictions Freedom-wise in
the AGPL.
Because I see software Freedom as something worth protecting and promoting
by example and I do not trust the FSF to always act in this interest, I
won't way that I am not concerned about being tied to their licenses.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like there are many choices.
If it were up to me and it isn't entirely. We would use either the LGPL
> (version 2) or the OSL:
>
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-3.0.php
I don't like section 5 of the OSL as it places strong conditions of *use* in
external deployments (too AGPL-like for my taste, and one wonders how
enforcible this section is as a copyright license as opposed to a EULA).
Otherwise, it doesn't look like a bad license.
If everyone else agrees, I have no problem with the LGPL v2 for new code,
however.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Ledger-smb-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-devel
