Hi Karl and Lennert, Community,

Thanks very much for your comments and for the opportunity you are
giving me to address them. 

I'd like to comment publicly - so that we can cast this in stone and
have it archvied for time to tell - that there are no hidden reasons,
secret plans or favouritism behind this initiative and the motivations
expressed. The reasons stated are the real reasons.

In the very early days of starting the project i picked a license semi
randomly, that is, after having been recommended so. Many years passed
and i focused solely on core develoment of pmacct. Am i a believer of
restrictive licenses? No, i've never been. I personally believe in
innovating and looking forward rather than making sure nobody is
'copying' (pass me the simplistic term) pmacct - i think by doing
open-source that is simply a given. So one day happened that we had
this kind of conversation with Job and decided to attempt to re-align

Related to the above, I also believe that people so far have contributed
to pmacct not out of desire to comply with the license terms but because
they thought that sharing their code would benefit all parties involved.

The other point that Job raised, let's call it the mortality one, i
truly believe it's self-explanatory. I may perhaps add that over the
course of 17 years intellectual thinking of a person may evolve.

One more reason that perhaps did not emerge is - again on a pure
intelllectual level - the wish to maximize who uses pmacct, including
inside their products. Licensing has several time risen as a concern
for integrating pmacct in 3rd parties so I hope we can now put that to

Finally, I too consent relicense my pmacct work under the proposed
license. I'm excited to see this change happen! :-)

On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 05:05:48PM +0200, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 08:53:57AM -0600, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> > > Summary: The pmacct project is looking to relicense its code from the
> > > current GPL license to a more liberal BSD-style license.
> > > 
> > > 1) Faced with our own mortality, it became clear that succession
> > >    planning is of paramount importance for this project's continued
> > >    success. We contemplated what happens in context of intellectual
> > >    property rights should one of pmacct's contributors pass away, and
> > >    realized potential heirs won't necessarily desire involvement in this
> > >    open source project, potentially hampering changes to intellectual
> > >    property policies in the project's future. 
> > > 
> > > 2) We suspect there are entities who violate the terms of pmacct's
> > >    current GPL license, but at the same time we don't wish to litigate.
> > >    Instead of getting infringers to change their behavior, relicensing
> > >    the project could be another way to resolve the potential for
> > >    conflict: we see benefits to removing rules we don't plan on
> > >    enforcing anyway.
> > 
> > On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 16:02:35 +0200
> > Lennert Buytenhek <buyt...@wantstofly.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Although the stated reasoning
> > > for the relicensing effort feels somewhat specious to me, 
> > 
> > I agree.  (Disclaimer: I'm not a contributor.)
> > 
> > 1) If we wanted to change the licensing, we couldn't, after we're
> > dead.
> > 
> > 2) People are violating our rights and we don't want to do
> > anything about it.
> > 
> > I don't want to argue one way or another but it would be nice
> > to have a real reason.  There are good reasons available,
> > all the way down to "I wrote most of it and I changed my mind."
> > 
> > Even if there's some commercial entity that wants to sell
> > pmacct in their product and won't because of the licensing,
> > it would be nice to know this.  Especially knowing who.
> > (E.g. We know that Amazon uses PostgreSQL as the basis
> > of their RDS database product, and does not contribute
> > back as far as I can tell.)  It'd be nice to know who 
> > the contributors are helping.
> FWIW, I fully agree with this analysis.  I chose to agree with the
> relicensing anyway as I don't think this is an important enough
> battle to fight.   (If someone were to ask me to relicense my Linux
> kernel contributions under a closed-source-able license, I would be
> a lot more upset.)
> _______________________________________________
> pmacct-discussion mailing list
> http://www.pmacct.net/#mailinglists

pmacct-discussion mailing list

Reply via email to