Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl writes: Maybe because of this discussion the developer has decided to remove the 5 user limitation, and to replace it by some user limit exceeded messages in the webinterface of the program. You can use the program with this messages. So, the limit doesn't exist, but a message falsely reports such a limit? I don't think this changes the situation really. You're right, that would still be a bug to be removed. -- \ “The history of Western science confirms the aphorism that the | `\ great menace to progress is not ignorance but the illusion of | _o__)knowledge.” —Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, 1914–2004 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85sicfyplk@benfinney.id.au
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Op 05-04-15 om 01:55 schreef Gunnar Wolf: The debated situation seems similar to me: Debian should not knowingly ship a bug. If at all, I'd patch it away and add a disclaimer stating that the software has the five user limitation removed, but requesting a voluntary donation in case it is used for professional use. Maybe because of this discussion the developer has decided to remove the 5 user limitation, and to replace it by some user limit exceeded messages in the webinterface of the program. You can use the program with this messages. I don't think this changes the situation really. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mfqpjm$2d8$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Op 05-04-15 om 01:56 schreef Gunnar Wolf: Paul van der Vlis dijo [Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 12:12:25PM +0200]: No they aren't. The source that CentOS uses is modified to remove references to Red Hat. Debian has to change the source of Firefox and Thunderbird too. Does that make it nonfree software? I don't think so. Remember we don't ship Firefox or Thunderbird — We ship Iceweasel and Icedove. Precisely for that reason. You are right, Firefox and Thunderbird are not DFSG free. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mfqq7u$am8$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Op 05-04-15 om 09:57 schreef Ben Finney: Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl writes: Maybe because of this discussion the developer has decided to remove the 5 user limitation, and to replace it by some user limit exceeded messages in the webinterface of the program. You can use the program with this messages. So, the limit doesn't exist, but a message falsely reports such a limit? There is a limit in not-showing the message. The software will work with user limit exceeded. I don't think this changes the situation really. You're right, that would still be a bug to be removed. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mfqr1p$m6l$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Paul van der Vlis dijo [Sun, Apr 05, 2015 at 10:16:57AM +0200]: Maybe because of this discussion the developer has decided to remove the 5 user limitation, and to replace it by some user limit exceeded messages in the webinterface of the program. You can use the program with this messages. So, the limit doesn't exist, but a message falsely reports such a limit? There is a limit in not-showing the message. The software will work with user limit exceeded. Bug report: Software displays a warning about a user limit. Maintainer action: Remove the warning. Bug fixed. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150405155740.ga66...@gwolf.org
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Alessandro Rubini dijo [Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 08:20:34AM +0200]: (...) The real problem is we lack sustainable commercial models for free software. No wonder independent developers are fewer and fewer: those who are not employed by big corps (G, RH, LF) do free software in their spare time after earning a living on proprietary software. And those who insist in remaining independent are starving, unless they are better at marketing than at developing. I welcome this approach, because it's novel and smart. Not defective by design, but a simple thing to raise user's attention to a problem. Clearly I wouldn't like being forced to rebuild this and that to make real use of the distro. But unless we know what this software package is, all of this discussion is moot. One of the packages I maintain, Collabtive, is free by itself but allows (promotes maybe?) the user to install non-free plugins. I ship the package with this patch: https://sources.debian.net/src/collabtive/2.0%2Bdfsg-5/debian/patches/plugin_disclaimer/ That is (so you don't have to refer to the patch itself), the plugins lister is prefixed by the following message: Note that, while Collabtive itself is completely Free Software, plugins are propietary extras, produced and marketed by Open Dynamics, the authors of Collabtive. The Collabtive Debian package does not endorse in any way the usage of plugins — They might enhance your Collabtive experience, but they are completely outside Debian's scope. The debated situation seems similar to me: Debian should not knowingly ship a bug. If at all, I'd patch it away and add a disclaimer stating that the software has the five user limitation removed, but requesting a voluntary donation in case it is used for professional use. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150404235528.gb63...@gwolf.org
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Paul van der Vlis dijo [Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 12:12:25PM +0200]: No they aren't. The source that CentOS uses is modified to remove references to Red Hat. Debian has to change the source of Firefox and Thunderbird too. Does that make it nonfree software? I don't think so. Remember we don't ship Firefox or Thunderbird — We ship Iceweasel and Icedove. Precisely for that reason. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150404235611.gc63...@gwolf.org
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 08:20:34 +0200 Alessandro Rubini rub...@arcana.linux.it wrote: [...] However, your intention is to apply a non-legally enforcable restriction that, were it in a license, would immediately and obviously fail the DFSG, [...] you are trying to (non-legally) force Debian to adopt a licensing scheme contrary to its values. How heated. You're right; I apologise. I think I'll stay out of this discussion henceforth and work on something else more enjoyable. :) pgpN3INf4aBLl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
2015-04-01 8:20 GMT+02:00 Alessandro Rubini rub...@arcana.linux.it: The only thing I'm sure about is that upstream has a built-in bug, easily removable. This bug has a novel and interesting reason to exist, and it's unclear whether debian should fix it immediately or later, or not fix it. I'm disappointed about all this handwaving about freedom, when it's just a a bug, even if on purpose. Let me take it one step further. What about if a DD introduced that limitation into an existing software that they are maintaining, on purpose, on the same conditions? Yeah, I know that the ethical rights to do so are not as strong, but the legal background is the same, and the business model would also be the same, right? I wouldn't like worsening the overall quality of the operating system, or the service to our users, to promote particular business models that are flawed from design, and that build essentially not on providing added value, but on extorting and blackmailing users who do not have enough technical knowledge to remove the limitations themselves. Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cafotxvm17seixxv8sscrvkd+gf4gr49ef0tmopw6s_ynz26...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Alessandro Rubini rub...@arcana.linux.it writes: This is exactly like the kind request to send patches to the upstream author, or the kind request to make a donation or otherwise support the project. With the significant difference that (as it has been described to us) the work embodies a concrete restriction on its use. So no, not “exactly like” those kind requests which do not limit recipients of the work. I don't see anything especially bad in a 5-users limitation. It's a bug like a million other limitations we have. With the significant difference that the copyright holder has expressed a positive desire that the bug not be fixed. The OP has said: The 5 user limitation is something in the software, but because it's AGPL it's not forbidden to remove it. But I think the developer would ask friendly to remove a version without the limitation from Debian. Since the copyright holder expresses the desire that the work not be in Debian with bugs fixed, that is a strongly negative consideration for that work entering Debian at all. -- \“The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things | `\ without evidence.” —Thomas Henry Huxley, _Evolution and | _o__)Ethics_, 1893 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85y4mc1hdy@benfinney.id.au
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
[...] However, your intention is to apply a non-legally enforcable restriction that, were it in a license, would immediately and obviously fail the DFSG, [...] you are trying to (non-legally) force Debian to adopt a licensing scheme contrary to its values. How heated. This is exactly like the kind request to send patches to the upstream author, or the kind request to make a donation or otherwise support the project. This kind of stuff is usually accepted. I don't see anything especially bad in a 5-users limitation. It's a bug like a million other limitations we have. For example, in kicad I can't make more than 12 inner layers in the PCB. We accept it because it's by design, but what if there were another kicad sold for profit without such limitation? Worse: open/libre office refuses to open on a different display (export DISPLAY) than the first instance that has been fired. And firefox forces me to create a different profile to achieve that. I find them limiting, and they are not easily patched. Than I'm aware I'm obsolete inside and few people swear at this, but it's similar. The real problem is we lack sustainable commercial models for free software. No wonder independent developers are fewer and fewer: those who are not employed by big corps (G, RH, LF) do free software in their spare time after earning a living on proprietary software. And those who insist in remaining independent are starving, unless they are better at marketing than at developing. I welcome this approach, because it's novel and smart. Not defective by design, but a simple thing to raise user's attention to a problem. Clearly I wouldn't like being forced to rebuild this and that to make real use of the distro. But unless we know what this software package is, all of this discussion is moot. The only thing I'm sure about is that upstream has a built-in bug, easily removable. This bug has a novel and interesting reason to exist, and it's unclear whether debian should fix it immediately or later, or not fix it. I'm disappointed about all this handwaving about freedom, when it's just a a bug, even if on purpose. I heard about a commercial model of making subtly bugged software and then sell consultancy to fix those bugs when users hit them. *that* would be bad to have in debian, but we can't really know if some of this exists or has been accepted. The upstream author of this discussion is much more clear and honest, and I respect it. BTW, dual-licensed stuff like Qt is much more predatory than this, and still is in main -- but I don't want to open this can of worms, it's just as a comparison about what commercial models debian supports (one-copyright holder, no unassigned contributions, separate proprietary distribution channel) and what we discuss strongly about (an upstream author who honestly claims he has completely-free software with an easily-patched limitation in order to bring some non-techie to support him). thanks for reading /alessandro, not a DD, not a lawyer, and commercially irrelevant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150401062034.ga...@mail.gnudd.com
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Op 01-04-15 om 08:20 schreef Alessandro Rubini: (..) The real problem is we lack sustainable commercial models for free software. No wonder independent developers are fewer and fewer: those who are not employed by big corps (G, RH, LF) do free software in their spare time after earning a living on proprietary software. And those who insist in remaining independent are starving, unless they are better at marketing than at developing. I welcome this approach, because it's novel and smart. Not defective by design, but a simple thing to raise user's attention to a problem. Nice to see that I am not the only one. Clearly I wouldn't like being forced to rebuild this and that to make real use of the distro. An howto will do that. But unless we know what this software package is, all of this discussion is moot. You can look at it as an academic discussion, that's what I do. The only thing I'm sure about is that upstream has a built-in bug, easily removable. This bug has a novel and interesting reason to exist, exactly. (...) I heard about a commercial model of making subtly bugged software and then sell consultancy to fix those bugs when users hit them. *that* would be bad to have in debian, but we can't really know if some of this exists or has been accepted. The upstream author of this discussion is much more clear and honest, and I respect it. Nice to hear! (...) With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mfgcrh$mdp$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Op 31-03-15 om 23:52 schreef Riley Baird: On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 23:06:57 +0200 Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl wrote: Op 30-03-15 om 03:33 schreef Riley Baird: Do you think RedHat Enterprise Linux is non-free software too? https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html Yes, it is. The trademark restrictions of Red Hat prevent you from distributing isos compiled from the source. So far I know Centos and more vendors are exactly doing that. No they aren't. The source that CentOS uses is modified to remove references to Red Hat. Debian has to change the source of Firefox and Thunderbird too. Does that make it nonfree software? I don't think so. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mfgga9$lts$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Op 31-03-15 om 23:36 schreef Paul Tagliamonte: All of this is outside the scope of -legal. If you want to discuss this, please bring this to -project. You have a point, but I am at the moment mainly interested in arguments, not in really getting the software into main. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/551bb7f7.8070...@vandervlis.nl
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl writes: For me this is an academic discussion about free software. Then it's off-topic here. Please don't use this forum for such academic discussions without a concrete work to examine. Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl writes: Op 31-03-15 om 23:36 schreef Paul Tagliamonte: All of this is outside the scope of -legal. If you want to discuss this, please bring this to -project. You have a point, but I am at the moment mainly interested in arguments, not in really getting the software into main. That's a mis-use of this forum. Please take it elsewhere. -- \ “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, | `\ neat, and wrong.” —Henry L. Mencken | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85r3s416li@benfinney.id.au
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Op 31-03-15 om 23:52 schreef Riley Baird: The constitution refers to licenses, but it has come to be understood that the upstream interpretation of, *and intentions behind*, the license forms part of this definition. For example, PINE had a MIT-style license, but upstream interpreted this to mean that both modification and distribution were permitted, but not distribution of modified copies. The solution wasn't to declare all MIT-style licenses non-free, but rather to declare such licenses non-free only when applied to PINE. You have a point. But I think PINE is wrong. Before you argue that you are not like PINE, and you are granting full permissions under the AGPL, and are only making a request, note that the above case was only cited as precedent for the constitutional understanding of licenses. In your case, you are trying to make restrictions without putting them in the copyright license, and thinking that you can get around the constitution that way. However, your intention is to apply a non-legally enforcable restriction that, were it in a license, would immediately and obviously fail the DFSG, at the expense of Debian's users. And that you threatened to friendly request that the software be removed from Debian should we fail to meet your wishes, is evidence that you are trying to (non-legally) force Debian to adopt a licensing scheme contrary to its values. Realize that it's not my software. For me this is an academic discussion about free software. What I see is that free software as in speech, what's not free as in beer, is a bit nonsense. At the moment. You can use that to sell some hardware, like a DVD or USB stick. In any case, this only matters if you want the software to go into main. You'd *definitely* be able to get it into non-free, and it isn't that hard to tell users to edit their /etc/apt/sources.list to add the non-free repository. Being only in non-free is nothing to be ashamed of. Many of the GNU manuals are there because they use the GFDL with invariant sections. Do you want to put free software into nonfree? Not if it's intentionally broken. You have a point. In that case, I'd rather keep it out of the archive altogether. Also, it's worth noting that most people in the Linux world are not as obsessed with freedom as Debian. :) Do you mean freedom as in beer? Yes. Are you happy now? Yes, I like clearness ;-) I think the problem is, that Debian has no repository for this kind of software. Exactly. We don't. And I think that from the discussion on this thread, it is obvious that we won't be making one. Go to Ubuntu and try to sell them on your idea. I am not interested in Ubuntu. I am not interested in selling. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mfgbro$4r1$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Op 31-03-15 om 14:03 schreef Ian Jackson: Miriam Ruiz writes (Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer): But, regardless of abstract debates, this is what I consider the most likely outcome of such situation, if it ever appears. Imagine someone packages the software including that restriction and uploads it to the archive. It would probably be possible to make the restriction configurable, so that a user could disable it easily. I would make a howto to rebuild the software. People will learn from it. And sysadmins will get an argument to pay. ( But I don't think this kind of software belongs in main, contrib, or non-free, it simply doesn't fit. ) With regards, Paul van der VLis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mfgdum$ca1$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Op 31-03-15 om 22:48 schreef Don Armstrong: On Tue, 31 Mar 2015, Paul van der Vlis wrote: Do you know an example of software what is distributed by Debian when it's clear the development team behind it, doesn't want that? cdrecord is a prominent example, where the developer was vehemently against Debian distributing it, and also vehemently against distributing a forked version. Guess what? Debian distributed it anyway. You have a point, but a very special one. There was no alternative for cdrecord at that moment. Now there is a fork, so a new development team. (...) With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mfgdh0$3qb$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Miriam Ruiz writes (Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer): But, regardless of abstract debates, this is what I consider the most likely outcome of such situation, if it ever appears. Imagine someone packages the software including that restriction and uploads it to the archive. It would probably be possible to make the restriction configurable, so that a user could disable it easily. So it seems like our options (assuming no-one manages to change the author's mind) might be: (a) Distribute the software with the restriction entirely removed, within the legal permission granted by the authors but against their clearly expressed non-binding wishes; (b) Distribute the software with the restriction on by default but made configurable, perhaps with only the grudging acceptance of upstream; (c) Distribute it with the restriction compiled in. (d) Do not distribute the software at all; Both (a) and (b) have their problems but (c) and (d) seem worse to me. While it is very likely that the TC would (in response to a bug report) overrule a maintainer who did (c), I'm doubtful whether the TC would overrule a maintainer who did (b). Personally I don't think (b) is too bad an imposition on users. It's not a DFSG violation. At worst it's annoying. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21786.36139.851558.610...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Please re-read my last mail on this thread. This conversation is going in circles. Thanks, Paul On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl wrote: Op 24-03-15 om 21:21 schreef Don Armstrong: On Tue, 24 Mar 2015, Paul van der Vlis wrote: Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte: Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so), What when the DD who packages it, would package it with the 5 user limitation? If it was actually AGPLed in its entirety, the maintainer would just remove code which enforced the 5 user limitation. Next step would be a friendly question from the developper to remove the software from Debian. Do you know an example of software what is distributed by Debian when it's clear the development team behind it, doesn't want that? cut In any event, without particular licenses The license is clear, it's plain AGPL. and source files, we're having an academic discussion without concrete information or relation to Debian, which isn't on topic for debian-legal. I've spoken to the developer and he does not want the name of his program into this discussion. In his opinion the question is clear. He thinks it would make the name of his new program dirty. I think you can say: Debian does not want any software at this moment what's not free as in beer. The problem is, that such software does not fit in any of the existing repositories. The correct place of this program would be in main, but people expect free as in beer software there. Myself included. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mff0ju$kih$1...@ger.gmane.org -- All programmers are playwrights, and all computers are lousy actors. #define sizeof(x) rand() :wq -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cao6p2qse+5qa9d5mycsj4psit1ouiug5phu52x3xw9avqsc...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Op 24-03-15 om 21:21 schreef Don Armstrong: On Tue, 24 Mar 2015, Paul van der Vlis wrote: Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte: Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so), What when the DD who packages it, would package it with the 5 user limitation? If it was actually AGPLed in its entirety, the maintainer would just remove code which enforced the 5 user limitation. Next step would be a friendly question from the developper to remove the software from Debian. Do you know an example of software what is distributed by Debian when it's clear the development team behind it, doesn't want that? cut In any event, without particular licenses The license is clear, it's plain AGPL. and source files, we're having an academic discussion without concrete information or relation to Debian, which isn't on topic for debian-legal. I've spoken to the developer and he does not want the name of his program into this discussion. In his opinion the question is clear. He thinks it would make the name of his new program dirty. I think you can say: Debian does not want any software at this moment what's not free as in beer. The problem is, that such software does not fit in any of the existing repositories. The correct place of this program would be in main, but people expect free as in beer software there. Myself included. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mff0ju$kih$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015, Paul van der Vlis wrote: Do you know an example of software what is distributed by Debian when it's clear the development team behind it, doesn't want that? cdrecord is a prominent example, where the developer was vehemently against Debian distributing it, and also vehemently against distributing a forked version. Guess what? Debian distributed it anyway. The problem is, that such software does not fit in any of the existing repositories. The correct place of this program would be in main, but people expect free as in beer software there. Myself included. main is for software which meets the DFSG. Software which is only available at no cost but cannot be modified or used without limitation is not Free Software, and does not meet the DFSG. The correct place for software which can be distributed by Debian but does not meet the requirements of the DFSG is non-free. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come. -- Tussman's Law -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150331204800.ga6...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Op 30-03-15 om 03:33 schreef Riley Baird: Do you think RedHat Enterprise Linux is non-free software too? https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html Yes, it is. The trademark restrictions of Red Hat prevent you from distributing isos compiled from the source. So far I know Centos and more vendors are exactly doing that. How much work it was, and who the developer is is entirely irrelevant. And one more thing - it doesn't matter if you convince debian-legal that such a software licensing scheme is acceptable, because we don't make the decisions of what goes into the archive. The FTP masters decide that, and even then, they too are bound by the constitution. I think the constitution says that plain AGPL is OK. In any case, this only matters if you want the software to go into main. You'd *definitely* be able to get it into non-free, and it isn't that hard to tell users to edit their /etc/apt/sources.list to add the non-free repository. Being only in non-free is nothing to be ashamed of. Many of the GNU manuals are there because they use the GFDL with invariant sections. Do you want to put free software into nonfree? Also, it's worth noting that most people in the Linux world are not as obsessed with freedom as Debian. :) Do you mean freedom as in beer? I think the problem is, that Debian has no repository for this kind of software. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mff29h$h7m$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Op 31-03-15 om 22:40 schreef Paul Tagliamonte: Please re-read my last mail on this thread. This conversation is going in circles. I bring 4 new points in the discussion in this mail. 1: I've spoken to the developer and he does not want the name of his program into this discussion. In his opinion the question is clear. He thinks it would make the name of his new program dirty. 2: I think you can say: Debian does not want any software at this moment what's not free as in beer. 3: The problem is, that such software does not fit in any of the existing repositories. The correct place of this program would be in main, but people expect free as in beer software there. Myself included. 4: Do you know an example of software what is distributed by Debian when it's clear the development team behind it, doesn't want that? With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/551b10d6.7020...@vandervlis.nl
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
All of this is outside the scope of -legal. If you want to discuss this, please bring this to -project. Thanks. Paul On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl wrote: Op 31-03-15 om 22:40 schreef Paul Tagliamonte: Please re-read my last mail on this thread. This conversation is going in circles. I bring 4 new points in the discussion in this mail. 1: I've spoken to the developer and he does not want the name of his program into this discussion. In his opinion the question is clear. He thinks it would make the name of his new program dirty. 2: I think you can say: Debian does not want any software at this moment what's not free as in beer. 3: The problem is, that such software does not fit in any of the existing repositories. The correct place of this program would be in main, but people expect free as in beer software there. Myself included. 4: Do you know an example of software what is distributed by Debian when it's clear the development team behind it, doesn't want that? With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl -- All programmers are playwrights, and all computers are lousy actors. #define sizeof(x) rand() :wq -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cao6p2qqd65tpvwvtefunvfdue8wvmt2kc1goq8vo0e-g3ov...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 23:06:57 +0200 Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl wrote: Op 30-03-15 om 03:33 schreef Riley Baird: Do you think RedHat Enterprise Linux is non-free software too? https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html Yes, it is. The trademark restrictions of Red Hat prevent you from distributing isos compiled from the source. So far I know Centos and more vendors are exactly doing that. No they aren't. The source that CentOS uses is modified to remove references to Red Hat. How much work it was, and who the developer is is entirely irrelevant. And one more thing - it doesn't matter if you convince debian-legal that such a software licensing scheme is acceptable, because we don't make the decisions of what goes into the archive. The FTP masters decide that, and even then, they too are bound by the constitution. I think the constitution says that plain AGPL is OK. The constitution refers to licenses, but it has come to be understood that the upstream interpretation of, *and intentions behind*, the license forms part of this definition. For example, PINE had a MIT-style license, but upstream interpreted this to mean that both modification and distribution were permitted, but not distribution of modified copies. The solution wasn't to declare all MIT-style licenses non-free, but rather to declare such licenses non-free only when applied to PINE. Before you argue that you are not like PINE, and you are granting full permissions under the AGPL, and are only making a request, note that the above case was only cited as precedent for the constitutional understanding of licenses. In your case, you are trying to make restrictions without putting them in the copyright license, and thinking that you can get around the constitution that way. However, your intention is to apply a non-legally enforcable restriction that, were it in a license, would immediately and obviously fail the DFSG, at the expense of Debian's users. And that you threatened to friendly request that the software be removed from Debian should we fail to meet your wishes, is evidence that you are trying to (non-legally) force Debian to adopt a licensing scheme contrary to its values. In any case, this only matters if you want the software to go into main. You'd *definitely* be able to get it into non-free, and it isn't that hard to tell users to edit their /etc/apt/sources.list to add the non-free repository. Being only in non-free is nothing to be ashamed of. Many of the GNU manuals are there because they use the GFDL with invariant sections. Do you want to put free software into nonfree? Not if it's intentionally broken. In that case, I'd rather keep it out of the archive altogether. Also, it's worth noting that most people in the Linux world are not as obsessed with freedom as Debian. :) Do you mean freedom as in beer? Yes. Are you happy now? I think the problem is, that Debian has no repository for this kind of software. Exactly. We don't. And I think that from the discussion on this thread, it is obvious that we won't be making one. Go to Ubuntu and try to sell them on your idea. pgpVgsGcrFwoH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Hi, Le 25/03/2015 18:30, Paul van der Vlis a écrit : They're probably doing some crazy AGPL bits on top of more restrictively licensed bits; since they're the copyright holder, they can do that, but it may mean that no one else can actually use and/or distribute the code. No, it's plain AGPL v3. But he asks friendly not to remove some code and then redistribute. IMHO, a friendly request for a donation would be more effective and less likely to get removed in a subsequent fork. The scheme you are suggesting for this software implies that it is free (as in speech) only because people have the ability to patch a certain feature out (take the desert island test to see why: https://wiki.debian.org/DesertIslandTest ). For practical reasons, I would not want to have a package in Debian that people need to recompile or pay or whatever other action to use. They get the binary on DVD, they install it, they use it. So, for me, free-as-speech implies free-as-in-beer. If it had to be written in the Social Contract to be clear, I would vote for such an amendment. I think that answers your initial question, at least as far as I am concerned. Kind regards, Thibaut. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
No, it's plain AGPL v3. But he asks friendly not to remove some code and then redistribute. He can ask, and god luck to him. His goal, though – to arbitrarily limit the distribution and concurrent execution of the program – is directly opposed to the goals of the Debian Project, which explicitly seeks to free Debian recipients from such restrictions. Where do you see that? Debian likes licenses like GPL and AGPL. Yes. Those licenses don't have arbitrary number-of-user limits on the work, as this work's copyright holder apparently wants to impose. I think what you say is not correct. GPL and AGPL does not say anything about number-of-user limits in software. For so far I know they say nothing about the software itself, only about changing and distributing it. As a developer, you are free to make limits. And as a user, you are free to remove them. Or do I miss something? The developers that work on Debian want to give the best possible user experience. As has been said before, if there is a way that the limitation can be patched out, it almost certainly eventually will be, and the patched version will be distributed by Debian. It is *well known* that such licenses are not only for programms what are free as in free beer. True or not? Definitely correct. Selling free software is an essential part of supporting the development of more free software. The trick is to make sure the software *is* free while still selling it. Attempts to limit how many users can access the program concurrently are, if effective, restrictions that make the work non-free. As in beer. Not as in speach. Do you think RedHat Enterprise Linux is non-free software too? https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html Yes, it is. The trademark restrictions of Red Hat prevent you from distributing isos compiled from the source. If the restriction is not legally enforcible, and the legally enforcible license grants all DFSG freedoms, then that license is at odds with the desire to restrict recipients. The expectation must be that we will either remove that restriction to benefit Debian recipients; or decide that the conflicting expressed wishes are too risky, and not include the work in Debian at all. It's not about risky, it's about being nice. You can say “it's not about risky”, that doesn't negate the fact that it is risky. I'm pointing out the risk of mutually contradictory expressions from the copyright holder: expressing one thing via the chosen license, and expressing another by directly contradicting the license. No, by friendly asking something what's not contradicting the license. Why in the license do you see what you say? Good luck friendly asking, but Debian will most likely friendly refuse, and even if Debian doesn't, someone else will. The copyright holder appears to want recipients not to actually exercise the freedoms directly granted in the license. That's a risk to Debian recipients – the copyright holder expresses a desire to act against the freedoms they've nominally granted in the license – and it's up to the Debian Project to decide whether that's a risk worth taking on. It's like with imapsync. Maybe so. I don't know, because you haven't allowed us to compare the actual work and grant of license. It's not me you need to convince, though: I'm pointing out consequences of the conditions you are describing. So far we have only your description of this un-named copyright holder of an unspecified work. Until we see the work and the expression of what restrictions are imposed, without a screen of vagueness, we can only speak in generalities. Please, if you want a better discussion about this, present the actual work for us to inspect, complete with the exact text granting license to the recipient. I've asked the developer, he is thinking about it, and he've asked me in the maintime not calling a name. And he's thinking about removing the 5-user-limit. This kind of software does not excist for Linux as open source. He is very experienced developer grown up in the commercial software world. For him open source software is very new. To give an idea: only the manual is over 200 pages, this software was a lot of work. How much work it was, and who the developer is is entirely irrelevant. And one more thing - it doesn't matter if you convince debian-legal that such a software licensing scheme is acceptable, because we don't make the decisions of what goes into the archive. The FTP masters decide that, and even then, they too are bound by the constitution. In any case, this only matters if you want the software to go into main. You'd *definitely* be able to get it into non-free, and it isn't that hard to tell users to edit their /etc/apt/sources.list to add the non-free repository. Being only in non-free is nothing to be ashamed of. Many of the GNU
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Hi Ben, Op 26-03-15 om 20:42 schreef Ben Finney: Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl writes: Op 26-03-15 om 01:47 schreef Ben Finney: Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl writes: No, it's plain AGPL v3. But he asks friendly not to remove some code and then redistribute. He can ask, and god luck to him. His goal, though – to arbitrarily limit the distribution and concurrent execution of the program – is directly opposed to the goals of the Debian Project, which explicitly seeks to free Debian recipients from such restrictions. Where do you see that? Debian likes licenses like GPL and AGPL. Yes. Those licenses don't have arbitrary number-of-user limits on the work, as this work's copyright holder apparently wants to impose. I think what you say is not correct. GPL and AGPL does not say anything about number-of-user limits in software. For so far I know they say nothing about the software itself, only about changing and distributing it. As a developer, you are free to make limits. And as a user, you are free to remove them. Or do I miss something? It is *well known* that such licenses are not only for programms what are free as in free beer. True or not? Definitely correct. Selling free software is an essential part of supporting the development of more free software. The trick is to make sure the software *is* free while still selling it. Attempts to limit how many users can access the program concurrently are, if effective, restrictions that make the work non-free. As in beer. Not as in speach. Do you think RedHat Enterprise Linux is non-free software too? https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html If the restriction is not legally enforcible, and the legally enforcible license grants all DFSG freedoms, then that license is at odds with the desire to restrict recipients. The expectation must be that we will either remove that restriction to benefit Debian recipients; or decide that the conflicting expressed wishes are too risky, and not include the work in Debian at all. It's not about risky, it's about being nice. You can say “it's not about risky”, that doesn't negate the fact that it is risky. I'm pointing out the risk of mutually contradictory expressions from the copyright holder: expressing one thing via the chosen license, and expressing another by directly contradicting the license. No, by friendly asking something what's not contradicting the license. Why in the license do you see what you say? The copyright holder appears to want recipients not to actually exercise the freedoms directly granted in the license. That's a risk to Debian recipients – the copyright holder expresses a desire to act against the freedoms they've nominally granted in the license – and it's up to the Debian Project to decide whether that's a risk worth taking on. It's like with imapsync. Maybe so. I don't know, because you haven't allowed us to compare the actual work and grant of license. It's not me you need to convince, though: I'm pointing out consequences of the conditions you are describing. So far we have only your description of this un-named copyright holder of an unspecified work. Until we see the work and the expression of what restrictions are imposed, without a screen of vagueness, we can only speak in generalities. Please, if you want a better discussion about this, present the actual work for us to inspect, complete with the exact text granting license to the recipient. I've asked the developer, he is thinking about it, and he've asked me in the maintime not calling a name. And he's thinking about removing the 5-user-limit. This kind of software does not excist for Linux as open source. He is very experienced developer grown up in the commercial software world. For him open source software is very new. To give an idea: only the manual is over 200 pages, this software was a lot of work. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mf8tnj$6kr$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
* Riley Baird: The DD would not be allowed to package it with a 5 user limitation, because then the DD would be imposing a restriction on the software, not the upstream author. This is not quite correct. The user limit would just be a bug, subject to the usual bug fixing procedures in Debian. I'm sure we have a lot of software in Debian with similar limits, although they are usually emerging properties of the entire application, and cannot be patched away easily. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87r3s9dj13@mid.deneb.enyo.de
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
2015-03-26 10:57 GMT+01:00 Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl: Op 25-03-15 om 21:00 schreef Riley Baird: They're probably doing some crazy AGPL bits on top of more restrictively licensed bits; since they're the copyright holder, they can do that, but it may mean that no one else can actually use and/or distribute the code. No, it's plain AGPL v3. But he asks friendly not to remove some code and then redistribute. Social Contract Section 4: Our priorities are our **users** and free software Both. Not users more then free software. And adding artificial restrictions to software that harm our users, even when it might benefit upstream, will not help either our users nor free software, despite what might be argued that benefiting upstream could indirectly help the software they produce. But, regardless of abstract debates, this is what I consider the most likely outcome of such situation, if it ever appears. Imagine someone packages the software including that restriction and uploads it to the archive. If someone uses the software, it is quite likely that some user will file a bug request asking the maintainers to remove that particular restriction, In the case that the developer refuses to remove the restriction, what I would expect is a flame that will eventually end up in the CTTE intervening or a GR, because I'm sure that not all DDs will see such a situation with good eyes. In fact, as Walter Landry said, there's precedent of such kind of restrictions being removed for our users' sake, for example the case of xpdf. In the end, I would eventually expect that the restriction would be removed. And, even in the unpredictable case that Debian kept it, Ubuntu, Mint and any other derivatives could also remove it on their own, they don't need Debian's permission to do so. As I said (and this doesn't have anything to do with Debian, per se), I don't think in the end that might be a sustainable business model, sorry. Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cafotxvosf+9ugaq-veiy63yaz+porehyoe1toeupbt9ezqr...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Op 25-03-15 om 21:00 schreef Riley Baird: They're probably doing some crazy AGPL bits on top of more restrictively licensed bits; since they're the copyright holder, they can do that, but it may mean that no one else can actually use and/or distribute the code. No, it's plain AGPL v3. But he asks friendly not to remove some code and then redistribute. Social Contract Section 4: Our priorities are our **users** and free software Both. Not users more then free software. With regards, Paul. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mf0l69$6kl$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Op 26-03-15 om 01:47 schreef Ben Finney: Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl writes: No, it's plain AGPL v3. But he asks friendly not to remove some code and then redistribute. He can ask, and god luck to him. His goal, though – to arbitrarily limit the distribution and concurrent execution of the program – is directly opposed to the goals of the Debian Project, which explicitly seeks to free Debian recipients from such restrictions. Where do you see that? Debian likes licenses like GPL and AGPL. It is *well known* that such licenses are not only for programms what are free as in free beer. True or not? The copyright holder either wants their work (including modified versions) to be freely distributed to, *and distributed by*, any recipients of Debian; or they don't want that. It depends on the modidfications. If the restriction legally enforcible, such as in a copyright condition, then the copyright holder's expressed wishes will be satisfied because Debian cannot contain the work at all. That's not the case. If the restriction is not legally enforcible, and the legally enforcible license grants all DFSG freedoms, then that license is at odds with the desire to restrict recipients. The expectation must be that we will either remove that restriction to benefit Debian recipients; or decide that the conflicting expressed wishes are too risky, and not include the work in Debian at all. It's not about risky, it's about being nice. It's like with imapsync. Imapsync is a program what was many years in Debian. The maker tries to make some money with it for a living so he sells it from his website, but you can find it for free too. He uses a strange license what says that you may do everything you want with the sources. The software is removed from Debian because he did not really like it that it was in Debian. I think because the people did not pay because they did not see his website. For me as a Debian and Imapsync user it's very pitty that it was removed from Debian. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mf0mdq$ql6$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl writes: Op 26-03-15 om 01:47 schreef Ben Finney: Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl writes: No, it's plain AGPL v3. But he asks friendly not to remove some code and then redistribute. He can ask, and god luck to him. His goal, though – to arbitrarily limit the distribution and concurrent execution of the program – is directly opposed to the goals of the Debian Project, which explicitly seeks to free Debian recipients from such restrictions. Where do you see that? Debian likes licenses like GPL and AGPL. Yes. Those licenses don't have arbitrary number-of-user limits on the work, as this work's copyright holder apparently wants to impose. It is *well known* that such licenses are not only for programms what are free as in free beer. True or not? Definitely correct. Selling free software is an essential part of supporting the development of more free software. The trick is to make sure the software *is* free while still selling it. Attempts to limit how many users can access the program concurrently are, if effective, restrictions that make the work non-free. If the restriction is not legally enforcible, and the legally enforcible license grants all DFSG freedoms, then that license is at odds with the desire to restrict recipients. The expectation must be that we will either remove that restriction to benefit Debian recipients; or decide that the conflicting expressed wishes are too risky, and not include the work in Debian at all. It's not about risky, it's about being nice. You can say “it's not about risky”, that doesn't negate the fact that it is risky. I'm pointing out the risk of mutually contradictory expressions from the copyright holder: expressing one thing via the chosen license, and expressing another by directly contradicting the license. The copyright holder appears to want recipients not to actually exercise the freedoms directly granted in the license. That's a risk to Debian recipients – the copyright holder expresses a desire to act against the freedoms they've nominally granted in the license – and it's up to the Debian Project to decide whether that's a risk worth taking on. It's like with imapsync. Maybe so. I don't know, because you haven't allowed us to compare the actual work and grant of license. It's not me you need to convince, though: I'm pointing out consequences of the conditions you are describing. So far we have only your description of this un-named copyright holder of an unspecified work. Until we see the work and the expression of what restrictions are imposed, without a screen of vagueness, we can only speak in generalities. Please, if you want a better discussion about this, present the actual work for us to inspect, complete with the exact text granting license to the recipient. -- \ “Sittin' on the fence, that's a dangerous course / You can even | `\ catch a bullet from the peace-keeping force” —Dire Straits, | _o__) _Once Upon A Time In The West_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85oanf5ywf@benfinney.id.au
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Op 24-03-15 om 21:21 schreef Don Armstrong: On Tue, 24 Mar 2015, Paul van der Vlis wrote: Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte: Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so), What when the DD who packages it, would package it with the 5 user limitation? If it was actually AGPLed in its entirety, the maintainer would just remove code which enforced the 5 user limitation. On Tue, 24 Mar 2015, Paul van der Vlis wrote: I choose not to name it at the moment. Based on the facts, you're probably talking about Servoy.[1] No, it's other software. It's very new. They're probably doing some crazy AGPL bits on top of more restrictively licensed bits; since they're the copyright holder, they can do that, but it may mean that no one else can actually use and/or distribute the code. No, it's plain AGPL v3. But he asks friendly not to remove some code and then redistribute. In any event, without particular licenses and source files, we're having an academic discussion without concrete information or relation to Debian, which isn't on topic for debian-legal. 1: https://wiki.servoy.com/display/DOCS/Open+Source+FAQ I've asked the developper if he likes the name of the software in this discussion. He is thinking about it. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/meurbh$6jh$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
They're probably doing some crazy AGPL bits on top of more restrictively licensed bits; since they're the copyright holder, they can do that, but it may mean that no one else can actually use and/or distribute the code. No, it's plain AGPL v3. But he asks friendly not to remove some code and then redistribute. Social Contract Section 4: Our priorities are our **users** and free software We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We will support the needs of our users for operation in **many different kinds of computing environments**. We will not object to non-free works that are intended to be used on Debian systems, or **attempt to charge a fee to people who create or use such works**. We will allow others to create distributions containing both the Debian system and other works, without any fee from us. In furtherance of these goals, we will provide an integrated system of high-quality materials with no legal restrictions that would prevent such uses of the system. pgpI9OxmQLa_v.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl writes: No, it's plain AGPL v3. But he asks friendly not to remove some code and then redistribute. He can ask, and god luck to him. His goal, though – to arbitrarily limit the distribution and concurrent execution of the program – is directly opposed to the goals of the Debian Project, which explicitly seeks to free Debian recipients from such restrictions. The copyright holder either wants their work (including modified versions) to be freely distributed to, *and distributed by*, any recipients of Debian; or they don't want that. If the restriction legally enforcible, such as in a copyright condition, then the copyright holder's expressed wishes will be satisfied because Debian cannot contain the work at all. If the restriction is not legally enforcible, and the legally enforcible license grants all DFSG freedoms, then that license is at odds with the desire to restrict recipients. The expectation must be that we will either remove that restriction to benefit Debian recipients; or decide that the conflicting expressed wishes are too risky, and not include the work in Debian at all. Does that help? -- \ “Why doesn't Python warn that it's not 100% perfect? Are people | `\ just supposed to “know” this, magically?” —Mitya Sirenef, | _o__) comp.lang.python, 2012-12-27 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85wq2460um@benfinney.id.au
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl wrote: Hello Miriam, Op 24-03-15 om 21:05 schreef Miriam Ruiz: 2015-03-24 20:04 GMT+01:00 Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl: Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte: Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so), What when the DD who packages it, would package it with the 5 user limitation? If the 5 user limitation is a requirement, then the license is definitely not DFSG-free (and, also, they would have to figure out how to manage the contradiction between this limitation and the AGPL). Depending on the license, it might go to non-free, though. The 5 user limitation is something in the software, but because it's AGPL it's not forbidden to remove it. But I think the developer would ask friendly to remove a version without the limitation from Debian. If anyone actually used the software, I think the limitation would be quickly removed. As a historical example, xpdf, as distributed by the developer, prevented copy and paste from documents that were marked read-only. The Debian maintainer removed that feature. Cheers, Walter Landry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150324.142756.427512270065426951.wlan...@caltech.edu
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:42:08PM +0100, Paul van der Vlis wrote: Hello, Is there in Debian room for a program what's free as in speech (AGPL) but not as in beer? Debian contains software in main which is covered by the AGPLv3. In 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote on behalf of the ftpmasters and ftp-team: The short summary is: We think that works licensed under the AGPL can go into main. (Provided they don't have any other problems). https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/11/msg00097.html However, software with a specific restriction you mention, The program wants a fee when you create more then 5 users. It's a program for enterprises. is unlikely to be DFSG-free if it is prohibited to remove the specific restriction. If you are talking about a specific piece of software, please name it and post its license so that we know what we are discussing. Jeff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150324165102.gg17...@unpythonic.net
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte: Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so), its not dfsg free. Modefication and redistributing is allowed because it's pure AGPL v.3. But the creator would not like it when the 5-user restriction would be removed and then redistributed by Debian, I expect. ( When some organizations with less money would do that themselves, it would not be a problem. ) Is this the way Debian handles programs what are not free as in beer? With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mesa35$ufu$1...@ger.gmane.org
Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Hello, Is there in Debian room for a program what's free as in speech (AGPL) but not as in beer? The program wants a fee when you create more then 5 users. It's a program for enterprises. You can change the sources, but you will understand that the makers hope to get some money for the further development of the program. I am not sure I would like it when many programs in Debian would do this. But I don't see problems in the DFSG or in the legal-FAQ. What's your opinion? Are there already programs in Debian what are not free as in beer? Maybe we must change the DFSG to say we want only programs what are free as in beer ? With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mes0kg$kji$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:04:36 +0100 Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl wrote: Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte: Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so), What when the DD who packages it, would package it with the 5 user limitation? The DD would not be allowed to package it with a 5 user limitation, because then the DD would be imposing a restriction on the software, not the upstream author. Also, as far as I can tell, a 5 user limitation would contradict the AGPL. Or is the 5 user limitation only a recommendation? pgpYO1rQhgPgG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte: Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so), What when the DD who packages it, would package it with the 5 user limitation? With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mescg4$6s1$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
2015-03-24 20:04 GMT+01:00 Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl: Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte: Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so), What when the DD who packages it, would package it with the 5 user limitation? If the 5 user limitation is a requirement, then the license is definitely not DFSG-free (and, also, they would have to figure out how to manage the contradiction between this limitation and the AGPL). Depending on the license, it might go to non-free, though. If it is not a requirement, but a suggestion, like please, be nice, our business odel depends on the fact that the software is published with this limitation, then I think they should probably rethink their business model, because it is quite likely not going to work. And, even if some developer would upload it with that limitation, someone will likely file a bug request to remove it, and they will have to eventually remove it anyway. Keep in mind, from the Social Contract, that Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software. Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cafotxvpwzknsu4bxvl_pmiz15nfphpm7qkemtrisyuqn5-n...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015, Paul van der Vlis wrote: Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte: Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so), What when the DD who packages it, would package it with the 5 user limitation? If it was actually AGPLed in its entirety, the maintainer would just remove code which enforced the 5 user limitation. On Tue, 24 Mar 2015, Paul van der Vlis wrote: I choose not to name it at the moment. Based on the facts, you're probably talking about Servoy.[1] They're probably doing some crazy AGPL bits on top of more restrictively licensed bits; since they're the copyright holder, they can do that, but it may mean that no one else can actually use and/or distribute the code. In any event, without particular licenses and source files, we're having an academic discussion without concrete information or relation to Debian, which isn't on topic for debian-legal. 1: https://wiki.servoy.com/display/DOCS/Open+Source+FAQ -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something. -- Steven Wright -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150324202146.gj2...@rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
On Mar 24, 2015 1:17 PM, Jeff Epler jep...@unpythonic.net wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:42:08PM +0100, Paul van der Vlis wrote: Hello, Is there in Debian room for a program what's free as in speech (AGPL) but not as in beer? Debian contains software in main which is covered by the AGPLv3. In 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote on behalf of the ftpmasters and ftp-team: The short summary is: We think that works licensed under the AGPL can go into main. (Provided they don't have any other problems). https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/11/msg00097.html However, software with a specific restriction you mention, The program wants a fee when you create more then 5 users. It's a program for enterprises. is unlikely to be DFSG-free if it is prohibited to remove the specific restriction. Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so), its not dfsg free. If you are talking about a specific piece of software, please name it and post its license so that we know what we are discussing. Jeff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150324165102.gg17...@unpythonic.net
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Op 24-03-15 om 17:51 schreef Jeff Epler: On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:42:08PM +0100, Paul van der Vlis wrote: Hello, Is there in Debian room for a program what's free as in speech (AGPL) but not as in beer? Debian contains software in main which is covered by the AGPLv3. In 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote on behalf of the ftpmasters and ftp-team: The short summary is: We think that works licensed under the AGPL can go into main. (Provided they don't have any other problems). https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/11/msg00097.html However, software with a specific restriction you mention, The program wants a fee when you create more then 5 users. It's a program for enterprises. is unlikely to be DFSG-free if it is prohibited to remove the specific restriction. If you are talking about a specific piece of software, please name it and post its license so that we know what we are discussing. I choose not to name it at the moment. There are no concrete plans to package it. I am only interested if it would be possible. The license is AGPL version 3 without any restriction, like here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mes9av$hrp$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
[Right, so I'm with Don; concrete examples here help] This is not the opinion of any organization I'm in, this is purely my reading. General notes I'm going to leave here because folks who think this way can skip it and see my reading - DFSG freenes is applied to *licenses*. Notice everything in the DFSG starts with 'the license'. Software freeness is kinda a silly concept, and we should rather think about User freeness. Licenses that define redistribution protect users, not software. We therefore regulate and talk about licenses, not software (directly) - DFSG tests are to be applied to licenses, not software. On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 07:23:32PM +0100, Paul van der Vlis wrote: Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte: Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so), its not dfsg free. Modefication and redistributing is allowed because it's pure AGPL v.3. If it's pure AGPL; it's a DFSG free work. As far as I'm concerened, this is the end of the story. What we do and do not patch, well, that's up to the maintainer. It's worth verifying that the license is in fact pure AGPL, and not 'freemium' or 'open core'. But the creator would not like it when the 5-user restriction would be removed and then redistributed by Debian, I expect. This is partially a troll, but mostly to drive home a point. Technically speaking, I don't have a problem with leaving it in. The big objection that I'm going to feel here is that it restricts use of the software -- but this is *not* present in the license, rather, it's implemented in code, in a work that is DFSG free, and may be patched out without issue. I don't think a *feature* that's part of a DFSG free work that infringes on user freedom inherently causes a DFSG freeness issue. I do, however, strongly believe that this messes with the spirit of the license, and I wish the author would find an alternate monetization technique, rather than trying to *create* a power dynamic that free software intends to solve (namely; subjecting users to a single central entity to their rules by denying them freedom) ( When some organizations with less money would do that themselves, it would not be a problem. ) Is this the way Debian handles programs what are not free as in beer? We have no mechanism to charge users for programs. Some may say this is a feature, others might claim it's a failure. I do, however, believe that some of this is not entirely about DFSG freenes, but the spirit of what we're doing in Debian - namely, how is this work adding to liberated users. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. Toodles, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org | Proud Debian Developer : :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Hello Miriam, Op 24-03-15 om 21:05 schreef Miriam Ruiz: 2015-03-24 20:04 GMT+01:00 Paul van der Vlis p...@vandervlis.nl: Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte: Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so), What when the DD who packages it, would package it with the 5 user limitation? If the 5 user limitation is a requirement, then the license is definitely not DFSG-free (and, also, they would have to figure out how to manage the contradiction between this limitation and the AGPL). Depending on the license, it might go to non-free, though. The 5 user limitation is something in the software, but because it's AGPL it's not forbidden to remove it. But I think the developer would ask friendly to remove a version without the limitation from Debian. If it is not a requirement, but a suggestion, like please, be nice, our business odel depends on the fact that the software is published with this limitation, then I think they should probably rethink their business model, because it is quite likely not going to work. Not sure, I think it's an interesting experiment. E.g. RedHat earns money with open source software too. And, even if some developer would upload it with that limitation, someone will likely file a bug request to remove it, and they will have to eventually remove it anyway. Why? So far I see it's DFSG-free. Keep in mind, from the Social Contract, that Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software. It's about distributing free software. And for the users it's nice that it's packaged. But, I am not sure if I would like it to have paid software in Debian, maybe Debian should not only free as in speech, but also free as in beer. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5511d473.1090...@vandervlis.nl
