RE: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 11:58 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > From: Antonio Olivares > > > To cat the free fish living in the sea, Les will need more > > than a free boat. > > > > He will also need Nets, > > > He does need much more? Yes GNU provides these things, but > > he does not want to give credit to them :( His company is > > Les Fishery Inc., Not Les/GNU Fishery Inc. > > Good Grief! You almost make me want to stay as far away from GNU as > possible. At least with MS, I give them my money, I get no religion and > they go away. Exactly. It's the biggest problem there is with Linux; the cult of the New Flagellants. --LX -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Alexandre Oliva wrote: Yes, of course the GPL misrepresents words to make restrictions sound like freedom. That's the reason it exists. But the CDDL, MPL, etc., do nothing to conflict with the terms you specify. Yet somehow they do conflict with the terms of the GPL, intentionally and by design. It is the GPL that was designed to conflict with others, including the original BSD. Tell me, how is it possible for them to conflict with the GPL, and not with this licenselet I proposed? Where do you see a difference? Your wording is about providing rights. The GPL wording is about restricting all derivatives to only exactly its own terms. I want to hear your plan for that. Or any possible plan. I presented it already. It's upthread, just 2 round-trips up. If you mean where you said one customer would pay for it all, that's not a plan, it's a fairy tale. In addition to a lawyer to help you decide which of the two conflicting interpretations of the GPL you have is the right one, please go see a doctor for your memory problems :-) I think you are the one who forgot I wanted the plan for something that a single customer could not afford. Or something that would require you to have a team of programmers to complete. And it is a direct cause of not having a fully competitive, mostly free, alternative to the monopoly product. And yet somehow the various *BSD variants exist and haven't accomplished that. Could this argument possibly hold any less water? OS X is derived from BSD work, and is an excellent example of what can be accomplished. But Apple can get by with a somewhat limited driver set and they aren't really in the OS business. While BSD was fighting the legal battle that made free unix-like systems possible, Linux stole most of the development work, trapping the contributions with GPL-restrictions and making them unusable for anything else. So now the widest base of drivers is trapped by those restrictions. If I need to be more explicit, just as certain extreme leftist political systems eliminate incentives to productivity, copyleft terms eliminate incentives to creativity. I'm a bit surprised you equal GPL to communism, rather than Free Software to communism like most other FUD-spreaders do. FUD-spreaders see free software as competition. I'm not a FUD-spreader or a software distributer. I want more and better software as a user and potential customer - and I want it to be available to everyone else as well. Available and affordable software is a much more significant goal than free software. The GPL restrictions prevent many ways that existing software could be improved. Next on their list of 'Free' things to eliminate is 'Free market', 'Free press' and 'Free speech', and let 'Copyrights' trample 'Human rights', for there's no money in the latter. See ACTA, Budapest convention, and the ongoing behind-the-scenes discussions in the international customs organization and G8. I don't care what is on anyone else's list. I want to see free software in use instead of losing an all-or-nothing battle as it has continued to do for decades. No, in my scenario, you are the one doing the funding. Not some imaginary first customer that you make up. On Jul 24, 2008, *Les* *Mikesell* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Why would your customer pay for that first copy, knowing no one else has to share the cost? Who made it up, again? If you believe the GPL leaves some business plan possible to fund the creation of a large new work, please explain it. If they do, per your argument, they'd be losing the ability to recover part of their costs. Why would they? Because they can. And if they do, why should I care? I've already been paid! It's in *their* interest to recover those costs now. Not gonna happen. I offered a plan that is compatible with the GPL (and any other Free Software license, for that matter), and that doesn't disrespect anyone's freedom in the process, and that ensures I get my payment if I can find enough initial customers to fund the development work. If they don't fund it, I may decide not to do it, or to do it on my own risk. Just like any other kind of software development. No, you made up an imaginary customer that would do something irrational. And it is nothing like ordinary software development where you can target a price that large numbers of customers can/will pay. It doesn't make much sense to pretend Free Software or even the GPL is special in this regard, in a world in which less than 1% of the IT industry income is out of software licensing fees, and more than 40% is out of services, including software development. There is no similarity at all. Most complex software would not exist without a workable plan to recover development costs. There are a few notable exceptions to this in the free software world but they aren't repeatable. Sure, this does make a difference for those who
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >>> Your wording is too ambiguous and you associate unusual politics with >>> some of those words so I have no idea what you intend. >> >> Tell me which words, and I'll point out they're present in the GPL as >> well, and you don't seem to have any trouble (mis)interpreting it. > Yes, of course the GPL misrepresents words to make restrictions sound > like freedom. That's the reason it exists. But the CDDL, MPL, etc., > do nothing to conflict with the terms you specify. Yet somehow they do conflict with the terms of the GPL, intentionally and by design. Tell me, how is it possible for them to conflict with the GPL, and not with this licenselet I proposed? Where do you see a difference? > I want to hear your plan for that. Or any possible plan. I presented it already. It's upthread, just 2 round-trips up. In addition to a lawyer to help you decide which of the two conflicting interpretations of the GPL you have is the right one, please go see a doctor for your memory problems :-) > And it is a direct cause of not having a fully competitive, mostly > free, alternative to the monopoly product. And yet somehow the various *BSD variants exist and haven't accomplished that. Could this argument possibly hold any less water? > If I need to be more explicit, just as certain extreme leftist > political systems eliminate incentives to productivity, copyleft terms > eliminate incentives to creativity. I'm a bit surprised you equal GPL to communism, rather than Free Software to communism like most other FUD-spreaders do. Next on their list of 'Free' things to eliminate is 'Free market', 'Free press' and 'Free speech', and let 'Copyrights' trample 'Human rights', for there's no money in the latter. See ACTA, Budapest convention, and the ongoing behind-the-scenes discussions in the international customs organization and G8. > No, in my scenario, you are the one doing the funding. Not some > imaginary first customer that you make up. On Jul 24, 2008, *Les* *Mikesell* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why would your customer pay for that first copy, knowing no one else > has to share the cost? Who made it up, again? >> If they do, per your argument, they'd be losing the ability to recover >> part of their costs. Why would they? > Because they can. And if they do, why should I care? I've already been paid! It's in *their* interest to recover those costs now. > How can you ever ensure, or even encourage a fair distribution of > the development cost of a large work? There's no way to ensure it. You may just as well write software with an expectation to sell, but that doesn't sell. You may get fewer customers that you expected. Or more. How would *you* ensure fair distribution of development costs? I offered a plan that is compatible with the GPL (and any other Free Software license, for that matter), and that doesn't disrespect anyone's freedom in the process, and that ensures I get my payment if I can find enough initial customers to fund the development work. If they don't fund it, I may decide not to do it, or to do it on my own risk. Just like any other kind of software development. It doesn't make much sense to pretend Free Software or even the GPL is special in this regard, in a world in which less than 1% of the IT industry income is out of software licensing fees, and more than 40% is out of services, including software development. Sure, this does make a difference for those who believe the aberration of the proprietary license sale model. That doesn't work for Free Software, and it won't work for software in general for very long. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: SHUT THE F*CK UP ALREADY!!! Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Nothing is said that has not been said before. Terence Roman comic dramatist (185 BC - 159 BC) -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions (was: Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?)
Antonio Olivares wrote: Here's an example of a case that the GPL has not helped the original author http://www.linux.com/feature/57131 The case is still pending :(, but pretty much the abusers or bad guys can get away with a great deal. This is unfortunate to the original authors despite having the copyright(s). Yes, but a third party can violate *any* license. That's not a fault of the GPL. -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 10:29 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote: > which is an interesting read as well. Here's a quote taken directly from it > > "if you add 'large pieces of originality' to the code which are valid > for copyright protection on their own, you may choose to put a > different and separate (must be non-conflicting...) license at the top > of the file above the existing license." He then suggested, "if you > wish for everyone to remain friends, you should give code back. That > means (at some ethical or friendliness level) you probably do not want > to put a GPL at the top of a BSD or ISC file, because you would be > telling the people who wrote the BSD or ISC file, 'thanks for what you > wrote, but this is a one-way street, you give us code, and we take it, > we give you you nothing back.'" > > > Regards, > > Antonio Good point, give and take is not a bad way to live. Me, I'm using the GPL because I expect people to take a shot at it, to give me back improvements, and the wheel turns. Knowing that is what I want to do, and knowing beforehand the elements of the GPL license, in my case I'm happy as a clam. Plus, there is the element of control that no one will take it and run off to make a buck on it, without getting their pants sued off. But, I wouldn't want someone to port it to BSD and use their license to allow others to do that, run with it for a fast buck. Tit for tat. Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/ http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar https://oar.dev.java.net/ Verizon Cell # 336-254-1339 - -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions (was: Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?)
> > I have gotten more of an insight on this issue and I > have to say that > > although you have many good points, Les has very good > points as well. > > I have gotten some input regarding issues with GPL. > ... > > /* name withheld to protect the identity of this > previous GPL author > > */ > > You mean someone *other* than Les? Yes :) > > > As a GPL developer, he tried to sue some GPL violators > and found that > > you cannot succeed. The majority of GPL violations > is/was done by > > small companies that cannot be threaten by forbidding > them to sell > > their products that are based on the violation. > > That's exactly what copyright law offers. If someone > is distributing > your software in violation of the license, the court can > order them to > stop distribution. The GPL, specifically, will also > terminate their > rights to distribute as a result of their violation. If > they want to > continue to distribute the software, they must negotiate > with the > copyright holder to restore that right. > > > As you in general cannot sue people for GPL > violations, why should we > > add restrictions to software that just hit the users > but not the > > abusers? > > That is a ridiculous assertion that has no foundation. The > GPL does not > "hit" users in any way. They don't even have > to accept its terms unless > they want to distribute the software. > > If the GPL were ineffective against abusers, then it > wouldn't affect > anyone at all. Portraying users as innocent victims of the > GPL is an > outright lie. > > > The logical result from this question is to put > software under a > > license that does not restrict collaboration in the > OpenSource area > > (like the GPL unfortunately does). > > That result is also illogical. If your supposed GPL > developer couldn't > enforce the GPL against companies that violated its terms, > then I don't > see any reason to believe that he could enforce any other > license, > either. He might as well put his software in the public > domain and > ignore licenses completely. Here's an example of a case that the GPL has not helped the original author http://www.linux.com/feature/57131 The case is still pending :(, but pretty much the abusers or bad guys can get away with a great deal. This is unfortunate to the original authors despite having the copyright(s). > > > In the early 1990s we probably needed the GPL, but now > it is no > > longer needed because it does not allow collaboration > between > > different OpenSource communities. > > More nonsense. Nothing significant has changed since the > 1990's. If > anything, there are now even more companies which would use > code that is > currently GPL licensed in proprietary products. > > > The GPL is an "universal receiver" > > of software from other licenses but it does not allow > GPL code to > > move towards other projects. > > That's not a fair characterization, either. The GPL is > not a "universal > receiver". It can only include software that is under > compatible > licenses. Furthermore, the license itself does not prevent > GPL code > from moving into other, more permissively license projects. > It does not > do so by default, certainly, but if there is good cause to > contribute > code to a project under a more permissive license (such as > in the case > that the GPL project used some code from the other, more > permissively > licensed project), then the authors of that project can ask > for a copy > of the software under a suitable license. > > Negotiating. We can all do it. Licenses don't change > that. We can negociate, the hard part is being in agreement :( Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions (was: Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?)
Antonio Olivares wrote: I know I will hear some comments, but these are some of the reasons why many developers try to avoid the GPL. Here's probably the strongest case against it. The GPL is an "universal receiver" of software from other licenses but it does not allow GPL code to move towards other projects. No, it's worse than that. The GPL restrictions even prevent receiving code covered by licenses that require the original attributions to be maintained, like the original BSD, MPL, and CDDL licenses, so much freely available work has to be repeated, generally forcing the users to repeat the debugging. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions (was: Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?)
Antonio Olivares wrote: I have gotten more of an insight on this issue and I have to say that although you have many good points, Les has very good points as well. I have gotten some input regarding issues with GPL. ... /* name withheld to protect the identity of this previous GPL author */ You mean someone *other* than Les? As a GPL developer, he tried to sue some GPL violators and found that you cannot succeed. The majority of GPL violations is/was done by small companies that cannot be threaten by forbidding them to sell their products that are based on the violation. That's exactly what copyright law offers. If someone is distributing your software in violation of the license, the court can order them to stop distribution. The GPL, specifically, will also terminate their rights to distribute as a result of their violation. If they want to continue to distribute the software, they must negotiate with the copyright holder to restore that right. As you in general cannot sue people for GPL violations, why should we add restrictions to software that just hit the users but not the abusers? That is a ridiculous assertion that has no foundation. The GPL does not "hit" users in any way. They don't even have to accept its terms unless they want to distribute the software. If the GPL were ineffective against abusers, then it wouldn't affect anyone at all. Portraying users as innocent victims of the GPL is an outright lie. The logical result from this question is to put software under a license that does not restrict collaboration in the OpenSource area (like the GPL unfortunately does). That result is also illogical. If your supposed GPL developer couldn't enforce the GPL against companies that violated its terms, then I don't see any reason to believe that he could enforce any other license, either. He might as well put his software in the public domain and ignore licenses completely. In the early 1990s we probably needed the GPL, but now it is no longer needed because it does not allow collaboration between different OpenSource communities. More nonsense. Nothing significant has changed since the 1990's. If anything, there are now even more companies which would use code that is currently GPL licensed in proprietary products. The GPL is an "universal receiver" of software from other licenses but it does not allow GPL code to move towards other projects. That's not a fair characterization, either. The GPL is not a "universal receiver". It can only include software that is under compatible licenses. Furthermore, the license itself does not prevent GPL code from moving into other, more permissively license projects. It does not do so by default, certainly, but if there is good cause to contribute code to a project under a more permissive license (such as in the case that the GPL project used some code from the other, more permissively licensed project), then the authors of that project can ask for a copy of the software under a suitable license. Negotiating. We can all do it. Licenses don't change that. -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions (was: Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?)
> I'm changing the Subject: header because some people who > are not > reading the thread seem to have inferred, from the > unchanging subject, > that the original huge thread was all about a single topic. > > Although this particular topic would probably be a better > fit for > fedora-legal, I believe most of its subscribers are > sufficiently > familiar with Free Software licensing to tell that Les' > theory is > flawed, whereas many Free Software users in this list > operate under > the same false assumptions and the influence of FUD against > the GPL, > so I think this sub-thread will remain more useful here. > > For those who somehow got the impression that this list was > supposed > to be limited to technical matters, please update your kill > files to > ignore this thread as well. > > > On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > A lawyer can't change what it says. > > Indeed. But a lawyer you trust could be able to convince > you you've > misunderstood it. > > > If the FSF doesn't not believe that the > work-as-a-whole clause > > actually means the terms must cover the work as a > whole, > > It does. The terms are permissions, the conditions are > requirements > for the exercise of the permissions. It doesn't take > away any other > permissions you might have. That it does is the incorrect > assumption > that's misleading you. > > > Consider this scenario: > > John A. Hacker develops, from scratch, a program that > contains two > source files: lib.c and main.c. lib.c was developed to be > released as > a separate library, under the modified (3-clause) BSD > license (so > these are the headers it carries), whereas main.c was > developed to be > released under the GPL (so these are the headers it > carries). John > A. publishes the whole, named gnothing, under the GPLv2+, > and never > publishes lib.c in any other way. > > Wanda B. Foreman downloads gnothing, and notices lib.c > would be really > useful in his project, linstall. She thus modifies > gnothing by > removing main.c and the build scripts, and then adds lib.c > to her > version control system, along with changes to the build > machinery to > have lib.c built and linked into his own program. She then > publishes > linstall, under the GPLv3+. > > Ken C. Farsight has access to Wanda's VCS repository, > and sees lib.c > show up there. It provides just the feature he wanted for > his bsdown > Free Software program, that he's always distributed > under the 3-clause > BSD license. He copies lib.c into bsdown and releases a > new version > of bsdown. > > Evelyn D. Scent maintains a non-Free fork of bsdown called > macrash, so > she takes this new release containing lib.c, merges the > add-on > features she maintains, and publishes a new release, under > the usual > restrictive EULA, known to be compatible with the 3-clause > BSD > license. > > > Please ask your lawyer questions such as: > > - Has any party had his/her license to distribute gnothing > or lib.c > automatically terminated? > > - Can John A. Hacker stop any of the other 3 from > distributing lib.c > in linstall, bsdown, or macrash, under the licenses given > or implied > by the description above, or even by itself under the > modified BSD > license, without a copy of the GPL? > > - Can Evelyn be stopped by any of the other 3 from > distributing this > version of macrash containing lib.c, under the usual > EULA? > > then let us know how he justifies the answers. > > > > Would this imaginative interpretation also permit > sharing of > > GPL-covered components modified to link with > proprietary libraries > > among people who otherwise have the right to do so > > AFAIK the GPL doesn't stop anyone from adding > dependencies on > non-GPLed libraries to GPLed programs. In fact, this is > very common, > in the particular case of system libraries on non-Free > operating > systems. > > It doesn't grant permission for the GPLed program be > distributed in a > form that contains the library or derived portions thereof, > without > also offering the corresponding sources of the library > under the GPL, > but if you distribute the GPLed program in source code > form, you're > covered, and if you can create an object form of the > program that does > not contain code derived from the library, and then > distribute it, > you're also covered. > > Now, if you split things up into a separate library, as a > means to > circumvent the GPL, and distribute both the library and the > GPLed > program that you modified so as to depend on it, you might > still face > a lawsuit on the grounds that the library is actually a > derived work, > or even that it is part of a single work, and the > separation is just a > trick to try to circumvent the license. A judge or a jury > might > actually side with the copyright holder of the program you > modified, > in this case. > > -- I have gotten more of an insight on this issue and I have to say
Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions (was: Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?)
On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gordon Messmer wrote: >> In the context of a legal interpretation of a distribution license >> (copyright license), "work as a whole" does not mean each individual >> part. > Of course it does, or proprietary parts could be included - or > linkages that make them a required part of the work as a whole. GPLv2 section 2 says: (emphasis mine) the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose *permissions* for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and *thus* to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. IOW, the whole is under the terms and conditions of the GPL. The permissions (1-3, in GPLv2) apply to each and every part as a consequence of this. Section 6 says: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. IOW, you get the GPL permissions by receiving the program, and upstream distributors can't have restricted any of these permissions. I don't see anything that would stop any of them from granting additional permissions over their own contributions. They can't grant additional permissions over others' contributions, because copyright law prevents that in the absence of explicit permission from the copyright holder. Now, back to section 2, and your favorite 2b. It says that you may modify the program and distribute modified versions of the program under this license, as long as you (among other things) grant the same permissions, subject to the same conditions, to recipients of the modified program and derived versions thereof. Again, it doesn't say you can't grant additional permissions. It doesn't say you have to impose restrictions that stop others from enjoying additional permissions you might have gotten yourself. It doesn't say you can't enjoy any additional permissions you got yourself. Now, what does agreeing to this amount to? "You may breathe in, as long as you breathe out. Do you agree?" Some possible responses: - No, I don't agree. I don't need to agree with it to keep on breathing. - Yes, I may. I have other permissions to breathe, but if they're all revoked, it will be nice to have this one. - Yes, I do agree. It's no big deal, and if I ever need to breathe in without breathing out, I can always use the other permissions I have. - Why, sure, and thanks! I was losing my breath already, all my other permissions to breathe had been revoked! Thanks for saving my life! And so nicely! I don't mind the requirement to "breathe out" at all, it's just reasonable! Of course you understand that I can still accept other permissions that are not subject to this condition, and that if I do, I'll then be entitled to breathe in without breathing out. My lawyer says so, and I have no doubt so does yours. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions (was: Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?)
I'm changing the Subject: header because some people who are not reading the thread seem to have inferred, from the unchanging subject, that the original huge thread was all about a single topic. Although this particular topic would probably be a better fit for fedora-legal, I believe most of its subscribers are sufficiently familiar with Free Software licensing to tell that Les' theory is flawed, whereas many Free Software users in this list operate under the same false assumptions and the influence of FUD against the GPL, so I think this sub-thread will remain more useful here. For those who somehow got the impression that this list was supposed to be limited to technical matters, please update your kill files to ignore this thread as well. On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A lawyer can't change what it says. Indeed. But a lawyer you trust could be able to convince you you've misunderstood it. > If the FSF doesn't not believe that the work-as-a-whole clause > actually means the terms must cover the work as a whole, It does. The terms are permissions, the conditions are requirements for the exercise of the permissions. It doesn't take away any other permissions you might have. That it does is the incorrect assumption that's misleading you. Consider this scenario: John A. Hacker develops, from scratch, a program that contains two source files: lib.c and main.c. lib.c was developed to be released as a separate library, under the modified (3-clause) BSD license (so these are the headers it carries), whereas main.c was developed to be released under the GPL (so these are the headers it carries). John A. publishes the whole, named gnothing, under the GPLv2+, and never publishes lib.c in any other way. Wanda B. Foreman downloads gnothing, and notices lib.c would be really useful in his project, linstall. She thus modifies gnothing by removing main.c and the build scripts, and then adds lib.c to her version control system, along with changes to the build machinery to have lib.c built and linked into his own program. She then publishes linstall, under the GPLv3+. Ken C. Farsight has access to Wanda's VCS repository, and sees lib.c show up there. It provides just the feature he wanted for his bsdown Free Software program, that he's always distributed under the 3-clause BSD license. He copies lib.c into bsdown and releases a new version of bsdown. Evelyn D. Scent maintains a non-Free fork of bsdown called macrash, so she takes this new release containing lib.c, merges the add-on features she maintains, and publishes a new release, under the usual restrictive EULA, known to be compatible with the 3-clause BSD license. Please ask your lawyer questions such as: - Has any party had his/her license to distribute gnothing or lib.c automatically terminated? - Can John A. Hacker stop any of the other 3 from distributing lib.c in linstall, bsdown, or macrash, under the licenses given or implied by the description above, or even by itself under the modified BSD license, without a copy of the GPL? - Can Evelyn be stopped by any of the other 3 from distributing this version of macrash containing lib.c, under the usual EULA? then let us know how he justifies the answers. > Would this imaginative interpretation also permit sharing of > GPL-covered components modified to link with proprietary libraries > among people who otherwise have the right to do so AFAIK the GPL doesn't stop anyone from adding dependencies on non-GPLed libraries to GPLed programs. In fact, this is very common, in the particular case of system libraries on non-Free operating systems. It doesn't grant permission for the GPLed program be distributed in a form that contains the library or derived portions thereof, without also offering the corresponding sources of the library under the GPL, but if you distribute the GPLed program in source code form, you're covered, and if you can create an object form of the program that does not contain code derived from the library, and then distribute it, you're also covered. Now, if you split things up into a separate library, as a means to circumvent the GPL, and distribute both the library and the GPLed program that you modified so as to depend on it, you might still face a lawsuit on the grounds that the library is actually a derived work, or even that it is part of a single work, and the separation is just a trick to try to circumvent the license. A judge or a jury might actually side with the copyright holder of the program you modified, in this case. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Gordon Messmer wrote: The GPL doesn't change terms on anything else and I've never implied that it can or does. You have repeatedly insisted exactly that. I've stated that is the practical effect, but the license can only control your actions, not anyone else's terms. You are only given two choices for those actions. You either don't do anything that copyright law would prohibit or you apply exactly the GPL terms to all parts of the work. > However, it only grants permissions beyond copyright restrictions if you comply with its terms There's a cost associated with someone using a product that someone else created? Shocking! To someone used to BSD, MPL, CDDL, etc. licenses that do not restrict sharing or improvement of covered code, it is. I understand that there can be some contention about what a 'derived work' is. But there can be no confusion about what the GPL says about the components, once you agree that a work is derived and thus encumbered by the terms. You're changing the basis of your argument, but you're not providing any more or better evidence for the position that you're arguing. The GPL does not and can not "encumber" works that were included under compatible licenses. What it restricts is your actions, by your agreement to its terms. And without that agreement you have the full restrictions of copyright law. Their original terms continue to apply. This is a fundamental component of copyright law. Yes, but per your agreement to the GPL terms you can no longer use those terms yourself. You've agreed not to. In the context of a legal interpretation of a distribution license (copyright license), "work as a whole" does not mean each individual part. Of course it does, or proprietary parts could be included - or linkages that make them a required part of the work as a whole. Proprietary parts can not be included because the GPL specifically prohibits terms more restrictive than its own to be applied to the work as a whole. There is nothing about more/less restrictive terms in section 2b. The terms must be exactly as specified in the license. If you don't agree to that you are not complying with the license. I'll reiterate my previous point: The work as a whole is a functional sum of all of the parts. If some component of a work contains restrictive licensing, then the sum of the licenses would be more restrictive than the GPL. Since the GPL forbids this, you may not distribute a work that includes GPL licensed parts and proprietary parts. Likewise for something less restrictive. Exactly the same thing, said another way: Including a proprietary component would create a de facto proprietary work as a whole. The terms of the GPL prohibit using GPL components in a proprietary work as a whole. They prohibit using any other license. Please point out the exception you've found. There is nothing that permits any different terms. "Work as a whole" does not mean all of the components, it means the sum of the components. That doesn't make any sense. A work which is partially GPL and partially some other compatible license does not become licensed only under the GPL by law, by intent, or by magic. If you cannot distribute under exactly GPL terms, you can't distribute. Compatible licenses, by definition, are those that permit this to happen. The work is licensed under several licenses, each of which apply to separate components. The terms of the GPL don't override the terms of any other license; instead they prohibit creating a whole work which includes components under incompatible licenses. The alternative licenses in dual-licensed works can be used by people who have not agreed to the GPL terms. In other words, when a work contains GPL and BSD licensed code, and you distribute that work to another party, you are required to offer them the source code to both the GPL and BSD licensed code. This is not because the terms of the GPL apply in some way to the BSD components, it is because if you do not agree to distribute the source code to the BSD components, then you aren't allowed to distribute the GPL components either. Yes, note how the GPL applies to all parts - because you agreed to apply it. And you won't find any exceptions to that rule that let you stop applying it. None of the terms of the GPL require that you give up the rights that you were granted by the copyright holder who gave you -- either directly or indirectly -- code under a compatible license. Yes they do. The concept of 'compatible license' shows specifically how you must give them up. Compatible licenses are ones that permit you to do what the GPL demands. If you weren't required to apply the GPL terms to all parts, then all other licenses would be compatible. That argument is founded on the incorrect understanding that "work as a whole" means all of the parts individually, rather than the sum of
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Les Mikesell wrote: Gordon Messmer wrote: That statement is a little ambiguous. The GPL does not have any power which copyright law does not grant. Specifically, it can not change the terms of work licensed under any terms other than its own and it can not force you to accept any other or additional terms on such work. The GPL doesn't change terms on anything else and I've never implied that it can or does. You have repeatedly insisted exactly that. > However, it only grants permissions beyond copyright restrictions if you comply with its terms There's a cost associated with someone using a product that someone else created? Shocking! If the FSF doesn't not believe that the work-as-a-whole clause actually means the terms must cover the work as a whole, why don't they make another license that says what they want it to mean? You're still not getting what "work as a whole" means. First, you have to understand that legal interpretation of terms is not like English interpretation. Legal terms have specific meanings which are sometimes different than English meanings because language tends to change and evolve with people's use of it. Legal terms do not change. I understand that there can be some contention about what a 'derived work' is. But there can be no confusion about what the GPL says about the components, once you agree that a work is derived and thus encumbered by the terms. You're changing the basis of your argument, but you're not providing any more or better evidence for the position that you're arguing. The GPL does not and can not "encumber" works that were included under compatible licenses. Their original terms continue to apply. This is a fundamental component of copyright law. In the context of a legal interpretation of a distribution license (copyright license), "work as a whole" does not mean each individual part. Of course it does, or proprietary parts could be included - or linkages that make them a required part of the work as a whole. Proprietary parts can not be included because the GPL specifically prohibits terms more restrictive than its own to be applied to the work as a whole. I'll reiterate my previous point: The work as a whole is a functional sum of all of the parts. If some component of a work contains restrictive licensing, then the sum of the licenses would be more restrictive than the GPL. Since the GPL forbids this, you may not distribute a work that includes GPL licensed parts and proprietary parts. Exactly the same thing, said another way: Including a proprietary component would create a de facto proprietary work as a whole. The terms of the GPL prohibit using GPL components in a proprietary work as a whole. "Work as a whole" does not mean all of the components, it means the sum of the components. A work which is partially GPL and partially some other compatible license does not become licensed only under the GPL by law, by intent, or by magic. The work is licensed under several licenses, each of which apply to separate components. The terms of the GPL don't override the terms of any other license; instead they prohibit creating a whole work which includes components under incompatible licenses. In other words, when a work contains GPL and BSD licensed code, and you distribute that work to another party, you are required to offer them the source code to both the GPL and BSD licensed code. This is not because the terms of the GPL apply in some way to the BSD components, it is because if you do not agree to distribute the source code to the BSD components, then you aren't allowed to distribute the GPL components either. None of the terms of the GPL require that you give up the rights that you were granted by the copyright holder who gave you -- either directly or indirectly -- code under a compatible license. Yes they do. The concept of 'compatible license' shows specifically how you must give them up. Compatible licenses are ones that permit you to do what the GPL demands. If you weren't required to apply the GPL terms to all parts, then all other licenses would be compatible. That argument is founded on the incorrect understanding that "work as a whole" means all of the parts individually, rather than the sum of the parts. The former meaning is unenforceable under copyright law. Even after distributing a work under the GPL, you may extract the parts under a compatible license and distribute those parts, only, under the terms of their own license. The recipients of your GPL licensed work as a whole may do the same. If, and only if, they have no need to agree to the GPL terms. Doing both at the same time is a contradiction in logic and dishonest even if you are unlikely to be sued over it. I think you have a warped sense of honesty. As a developer, and as a vocal advocate of the GPL as a license, I can't imagine anything that's dishonest about using
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Antonio Olivares wrote: I respect your stance on the license issue. In fact I would agree that most of the parts are good. Many projects use the license which shows that it is not totally bad. There are however certain restrictions and gotchas. For instance in the Open Source Definitions http://opensource.org/docs/osd The GPL could violate 9) 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software "The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software. " The final passage of the GPL makes it clear that there is no intention on the copyright holder's part to claim that the GPL must apply to "other software". Therefore it does not contradict or violate the 9th guideline for the OSD. The bad part is the one that hurts. The one where you have to do ... in order to _. They take away your freedom as the sole author of a certain project. No they don't, and they can not. If you are the sole author of a certain project, then you can license it in any way that you want, including under multiple different licenses, or changing the license at any time (though not retroactively). -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
> >> There is nothing to interpret. If you don't > like what > >> the license > >> actually says, why do you keep defending it? > > > > He might defend the good parts of the license :) > > I preferred not to respond to Les because he insists on > putting words in > my mouth. In fact, I do like what the GPL actually says > very much. > That is why I not only defend it, but use it for my own > software. > > In my opinion, *all* of the parts of the license are good. > > -- Gordon, I respect your stance on the license issue. In fact I would agree that most of the parts are good. Many projects use the license which shows that it is not totally bad. There are however certain restrictions and gotchas. For instance in the Open Source Definitions http://opensource.org/docs/osd The GPL could violate 9) 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software The bad part is the one that hurts. The one where you have to do ... in order to _. They take away your freedom as the sole author of a certain project. They are in control and not you, they can dictate what needs to be done at any time. This could be a potential downfall of it. http://www.topology.org/linux/gpl.html Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Antonio Olivares wrote: There is nothing to interpret. If you don't like what the license actually says, why do you keep defending it? He might defend the good parts of the license :) I preferred not to respond to Les because he insists on putting words in my mouth. In fact, I do like what the GPL actually says very much. That is why I not only defend it, but use it for my own software. In my opinion, *all* of the parts of the license are good. -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Gordon Messmer wrote: Les Mikesell wrote: The context is that it is a part of what you must agree to do if you want to do anything with _every_ GPL-encumbered work that copyright law alone would not permit. That statement is a little ambiguous. The GPL does not have any power which copyright law does not grant. Specifically, it can not change the terms of work licensed under any terms other than its own and it can not force you to accept any other or additional terms on such work. The GPL doesn't change terms on anything else and I've never implied that it can or does. However, it only grants permissions beyond copyright restrictions if you comply with its terms, which include applying the GPL restrictions to all parts of a work. If you can't or won't do that, you don't get to do anything with the already GPL encumbered portions that copyright does not permit. If the FSF doesn't not believe that the work-as-a-whole clause actually means the terms must cover the work as a whole, why don't they make another license that says what they want it to mean? You're still not getting what "work as a whole" means. First, you have to understand that legal interpretation of terms is not like English interpretation. Legal terms have specific meanings which are sometimes different than English meanings because language tends to change and evolve with people's use of it. Legal terms do not change. I understand that there can be some contention about what a 'derived work' is. But there can be no confusion about what the GPL says about the components, once you agree that a work is derived and thus encumbered by the terms. In the context of a legal interpretation of a distribution license (copyright license), "work as a whole" does not mean each individual part. Of course it does, or proprietary parts could be included - or linkages that make them a required part of the work as a whole. If it did mean each individual part, then the GPL would have used a different term. If the GPL had said "each individual part" or something equivalent, then no license other than the GPL could be compatible with the GPL. Copyright law does not allow you to change the distribution terms for a work to which you do not hold the copyright. The licenses that are compatible with the GPL are compatible because the GPL restrictions can be applied without violating there own terms. Licenses where you cannot apply these terms are all excluded. That is, it is your inability to apply these terms that determines what can or can't be combined in something you can continue to share. Instead, "work as a whole" means the functional work that is a sum of all of the parts. Since this meaning does not require that all parts have the same license, it allows for the work as a whole to contain some parts under different but compatible terms.Thus, a GPL protected work may contain BSD licensed code. In the case of the 'modified' BSD, it may. > The BSD license does not place any requirements on distribution that the GPL does not, so it is compatible. No, the reason it is compatible is that the modified BSD license does not contain any terms that prohibit you from applying the GPL terms over it. When you distribute a work that is GPL licensed and contains BSD licensed code, you are meeting the terms of the BSD license and are allowed to distribute that code. Yes, but if you distribute a portion without applying the additional GPL restrictions you are violating your agreement that was required to be permitted to distribute the GPL portion. However, since you can not change the license on a work to which you don't hold copyright, both you and your users are distributing the BSD licensed code under the BSD license. Yes, someone who had no need to distribute the GPL-encumbered portion would not have to make that same agreement and could thus pluck the BSD covered portion back out under its original terms. The terms of the GPL state that (among other things), you must distribute the source code corresponding to any modified or unmodified "work as a whole" that you distribute. That means that if you start with a GPL licensed work that contains BSD licensed code, then among other options, you may: * distribute the unmodified work, containing the compatibly licensed parts. Covered by GPL terms. * distribute the GPL licensed code without the BSD licensed parts. The result may not function, and I'm not sure why anyone would want to receive a non-functional work from you, but you have that right. Covered by GPL terms. * distribute a compiled version of the unmodified work. In this case, the terms of the GPL require that you also distribute or offer to distribute the source code to the "work as a whole". That means that you may not withhold any of the source code, or offer any of the source code under an incompatible license. It does not mean that each
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Antonio Olivares wrote: If you want an analogy: BSD is like the girl who sleeps with everybody. She gets a lot of sex and is invited to every party, but nobody respects her. GPL is like the girl who is selective about her partners. She doesn't have quite as much "fun" and has earned herself a little bit of a hard-to-get reputation, but the people who know her treat her well. Not quite, but its a good pretense The GPL girl has few partners because her disease is contagious. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
> >>> Please stop spreading misinformation. > >> > >> That's funny - remember this post is in > response to my exact quote of > >> the license section 2b. Do you really consider > what the license > >> actually say as misinformation? > > > > The terms of the license aren't misinformation; > your uninformed > > interpretation of them is. > > There is nothing to interpret. If you don't like what > the license > actually says, why do you keep defending it? > > -- He might defend the good parts of the license :) just look in the analogy by Mr. Hoffman about the girl* While on this topic, I found articles on GPL Hindering code sharing http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/01/2333233 In that above page, I found an argument by Jack Hoffman*, The BSD developers got what they wanted. Their code is in use. The BSD license intentionally trades away protection from inclusion in differently licensed projects in return for the increased likelihood that the code can be used. The GPL developers got what they wanted. Their code is protected from proprietization (And ONLY their code. Anyone can take the original BSD licensed code and do what they want with it). There is no story here. The GPL and BSD licenses try to achieve different goals and both work as advertised. If you want an analogy: BSD is like the girl who sleeps with everybody. She gets a lot of sex and is invited to every party, but nobody respects her. GPL is like the girl who is selective about her partners. She doesn't have quite as much "fun" and has earned herself a little bit of a hard-to-get reputation, but the people who know her treat her well. Proprietary licenses usually require payment. In trying to work together, the code was released as GPL, but they found that there could have been violations? http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070829001634 Now, since the code was released under GPLv2, the changes cannot be shared between the two communities. This is where the people lose on both sides of the argument. Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Les Mikesell wrote: The context is that it is a part of what you must agree to do if you want to do anything with _every_ GPL-encumbered work that copyright law alone would not permit. That statement is a little ambiguous. The GPL does not have any power which copyright law does not grant. Specifically, it can not change the terms of work licensed under any terms other than its own and it can not force you to accept any other or additional terms on such work. If the FSF doesn't not believe that the work-as-a-whole clause actually means the terms must cover the work as a whole, why don't they make another license that says what they want it to mean? You're still not getting what "work as a whole" means. First, you have to understand that legal interpretation of terms is not like English interpretation. Legal terms have specific meanings which are sometimes different than English meanings because language tends to change and evolve with people's use of it. Legal terms do not change. In the context of a legal interpretation of a distribution license (copyright license), "work as a whole" does not mean each individual part. If it did mean each individual part, then the GPL would have used a different term. If the GPL had said "each individual part" or something equivalent, then no license other than the GPL could be compatible with the GPL. Copyright law does not allow you to change the distribution terms for a work to which you do not hold the copyright. Instead, "work as a whole" means the functional work that is a sum of all of the parts. Since this meaning does not require that all parts have the same license, it allows for the work as a whole to contain some parts under different but compatible terms. Thus, a GPL protected work may contain BSD licensed code. The BSD license does not place any requirements on distribution that the GPL does not, so it is compatible. When you distribute a work that is GPL licensed and contains BSD licensed code, you are meeting the terms of the BSD license and are allowed to distribute that code. However, since you can not change the license on a work to which you don't hold copyright, both you and your users are distributing the BSD licensed code under the BSD license. The terms of the GPL state that (among other things), you must distribute the source code corresponding to any modified or unmodified "work as a whole" that you distribute. That means that if you start with a GPL licensed work that contains BSD licensed code, then among other options, you may: * distribute the unmodified work, containing the compatibly licensed parts. * distribute the GPL licensed code without the BSD licensed parts. The result may not function, and I'm not sure why anyone would want to receive a non-functional work from you, but you have that right. * distribute a compiled version of the unmodified work. In this case, the terms of the GPL require that you also distribute or offer to distribute the source code to the "work as a whole". That means that you may not withhold any of the source code, or offer any of the source code under an incompatible license. It does not mean that each part of the source code must be GPL licensed. * distribute a compiled version of a modified (derived) work. In this case, you must still distribute or offer to distribute the complete source code, and any changes that you've made must be under a compatible license. None of the terms of the GPL require that you give up the rights that you were granted by the copyright holder who gave you -- either directly or indirectly -- code under a compatible license. It merely requires that when you distribute a work, then you must meet the distribution terms for the entire work. Even after distributing a work under the GPL, you may extract the parts under a compatible license and distribute those parts, only, under the terms of their own license. The recipients of your GPL licensed work as a whole may do the same. No other interpretation of the terms of the GPL is allowed by copyright law. You may continue to argue otherwise, but you're arguing about an imaginary situation which does not exist and can not exist under existing copyright law. -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Gordon Messmer wrote: Please stop spreading misinformation. That's funny - remember this post is in response to my exact quote of the license section 2b. Do you really consider what the license actually say as misinformation? The terms of the license aren't misinformation; your uninformed interpretation of them is. There is nothing to interpret. If you don't like what the license actually says, why do you keep defending it? -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Alexandre Oliva wrote: Your wording is too ambiguous and you associate unusual politics with some of those words so I have no idea what you intend. Tell me which words, and I'll point out they're present in the GPL as well, and you don't seem to have any trouble (mis)interpreting it. Yes, of course the GPL misrepresents words to make restrictions sound like freedom. That's the reason it exists. But the CDDL, MPL, etc., do nothing to conflict with the terms you specify. - I charge the first customer, that hired the software development, a fair price for the work I did. Put yourself on the other side of that fence. Would you be that first customer for something no single person could afford? If I need it badly enough, sure? If I believe I can recover a fair portion of those costs, sure? I want to hear your plan for that. Or any possible plan. My contention is that the GPL terms make any such plan infeasible, if not impossible, and thus eliminates most of the usual incentives for creativity and innovation. And it is a direct cause of not having a fully competitive, mostly free, alternative to the monopoly product. If I need to be more explicit, just as certain extreme leftist political systems eliminate incentives to productivity, copyleft terms eliminate incentives to creativity. - This customer is entitled to further distribute it or sell it, since it's Free Software. Yet, the first recipient can also sell it at a lower cost - or give it away. Why should I care? Remember, I've already been paid by my work. If they do, good for them! No, in my scenario, you are the one doing the funding. Not some imaginary first customer that you make up. Why? Long before that the early recipients will have made it available. If they do, per your argument, they'd be losing the ability to recover part of their costs. Why would they? Because they can. And because their first customer can. How can you ever ensure, or even encourage a fair distribution of the development cost of a large work? to make the point clear, let's assume that this work would be intuitive to use and have no flaws so there is no potential revenue beyond an initial sale. Because in some strange world, that's how the majority of software is? Much free software is incomplete and lacking in documentation (because there's no particular reason for it to be complete or well documented...), but that doesn't have to be the case. Some products 'just work' and continue to work for at least the life of the machine where they were installed. When discussing incentives to produce new innovations, I'd prefer to talk about that latter kind that is better for everyone. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Les Mikesell wrote: Alexandre Oliva wrote: Please stop spreading misinformation. That's funny - remember this post is in response to my exact quote of the license section 2b. Do you really consider what the license actually say as misinformation? The terms of the license aren't misinformation; your uninformed interpretation of them is. -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
> > Being unable to combine GPLed code with code under > some other license > > is not something you can blame on the GPL alone. > > Of course I can. The entire reason for the GPL to exist is > to prevent > combining with code under other terms. That is it's > unique feature. For instance there is an article named "GPL Hindering Two-Way Code Sharing?" http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/01/2333233 It discusses how the licenses act in regards to each other and code sharing. From that page a link to http://kerneltrap.org/OpenBSD/Stealing_Versus_Sharing_Code which is an interesting read as well. Here's a quote taken directly from it "if you add 'large pieces of originality' to the code which are valid for copyright protection on their own, you may choose to put a different and separate (must be non-conflicting...) license at the top of the file above the existing license." He then suggested, "if you wish for everyone to remain friends, you should give code back. That means (at some ethical or friendliness level) you probably do not want to put a GPL at the top of a BSD or ISC file, because you would be telling the people who wrote the BSD or ISC file, 'thanks for what you wrote, but this is a one-way street, you give us code, and we take it, we give you you nothing back.'" Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Alexandre Oliva wrote: it has always been immoral to demand that others give up their rights. Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be immoral. Taking away any right is immoral. Like, let's say, taking away one's right to own slaves? Red Herring! 'I' don't/can't take away anyone's right to own slaves. The self-evident right of freedom of individuals takes it away. There is no such self-evident concept that your own ideas or work must be encumbered by someone else's terms. Forcing that takes away any possible joy someone might ever have in making their own decision about how to share their work. Someone improving a GPL-covered work does not have that choice. A person who is respectful of others cannot demand to take their choices away. Agreed. But granting more choices that the person didn't have is hardly similar to this. "Better than a sharp stick in the eye'. And refraining from granting other choices that the person wanted to get, but that would enable the person to take away from others, You can't 'take away' anything that is already available. might be "respectful" to the direct recipient in some strange world, but not respectful of downstream users. The downstream users can never have less available. The choices when adding something are to permit it to be shared or not. In many situations the GPL simply prohibits any sharing or improvement at all, the worst of all possible outcomes. That's the reasoning behind copyleft. And it is clearly misguided, given that there is no value in what it provides, and much harm it what it takes away. And yet, per your own arguments, sharing something that is undesirable never harms the sharing you regard as good. So why do you care? Could you at least try to be consistent? I am consistent and am talking about the larger set of what it prohibits, not the small subset of what it allows. The only situation in which you're not able to share the code is when it's part of a work that is based on someone else's work. Would you care to estimate how many potential improvements that prohibits? Not respecting users' freedoms can never be an improvement. Being unable to combine GPLed code with code under some other license is not something you can blame on the GPL alone. Of course I can. The entire reason for the GPL to exist is to prevent combining with code under other terms. That is it's unique feature. It's always because the other license is less permissive than the GPL, and for all other copyleft licenses, because they were *designed* to be, to weaken the plan of sharing of the GPL. No, it is because only the GPL has a work-as-a-whole clause that explicitly prohibits most of the potential ways of improving the work. There is no way to take any of the rights that the GPL conveys compared to copyright law without this clause being applied. And what about *other* rights you might have received through other means? What about them? The only way you get rights beyond what copyright law would enforce is by applying exactly GPL terms to all parts of a work as a whole. If there is any part where only the GPL applies you must accept the 2b terms or you can't share it at all. That's false. You only need to abide by the conditions in 2b *if* you choose to modify the program, and distribute modified versions. No, you don't have the right to distribute without accepting GPL terms whether modifications are involved or not. The upstream distribution where you got your copy would have already had to apply the GPL terms for you to obtain it. If you merely run the program, or distribute it in source code form the way you received it, you don't need to abide by any of the conditions of section 2. Running the program is permitted without accepting the license. Redistributing is not, modified or otherwise. If you distribute, you must apply exactly the GPL terms - which in the unmodified case had to have already been applied. I'm talking about what the license actually says and what has to happen if you comply with it. A license (rather than license agreement) is a grant of permissions to do certain things, nothing but it.The only thing you agree to is to receive those permissions. That's simply not true. As long as you operate within those permissions, you're covered. If you operate outside them, you're not covered by that license. If you have another license that grants you that permission, you're still covered. But you can't be 'within' the GPL permissions (terms) unless you comply with it's work-as-a-whole clause. And it explicitly says that nothing else can give you permission to redistribute. Do you not agree that cooperation should be voluntary? Or that you should have the right to make that voluntary choice? No. Quite the opposite. It is a key point. It is by no means wrong. But you have no voluntary choice for the terms on your own work
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Alexandre Oliva wrote: Please stop spreading misinformation. That's funny - remember this post is in response to my exact quote of the license section 2b. Do you really consider what the license actually say as misinformation? When you quote it out of context, you turn it into misinformation, yes. The context is that it is a part of what you must agree to do if you want to do anything with _every_ GPL-encumbered work that copyright law alone would not permit. It is only agreeing to those terms that gives you additional rights. There are no other options. If you don't or can't apply those terms to all parts or you can't share any that require it. Please. If you are serious about trying to make progress in this discussion, go talk to a lawyer and stop making things up. If you proceed further without talking to a lawyer, the only possible conclusion is that you are only interested in wasting our time. A lawyer can't change what it says. FTR, I did get a lawyer's opinion on that, from the same legal counsel that advises the FSF, who happens to be the author and the copyright holder of AFAIK the largest body of code available under the GPL. If the FSF doesn't not believe that the work-as-a-whole clause actually means the terms must cover the work as a whole, why don't they make another license that says what they want it to mean? Would this imaginative interpretation also permit sharing of GPL-covered components modified to link with proprietary libraries among people who otherwise have the right to do so (i.e. all concerned parties have their own license to the proprietary part). If it does, or you can explain the wording that differentiates between this scenario and parts that are under a different licence that the FSF happens to like this week, then I'll believe you are on to something. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Jul 24, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >>> it has always been immoral to demand that others give up their rights. >> >> Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be immoral. > Taking away any right is immoral. Like, let's say, taking away one's right to own slaves? > A person who is respectful of others cannot demand to take their > choices away. Agreed. But granting more choices that the person didn't have is hardly similar to this. And refraining from granting other choices that the person wanted to get, but that would enable the person to take away from others, might be "respectful" to the direct recipient in some strange world, but not respectful of downstream users. >> That's the reasoning behind copyleft. > And it is clearly misguided, given that there is no value in what it > provides, and much harm it what it takes away. And yet, per your own arguments, sharing something that is undesirable never harms the sharing you regard as good. So why do you care? Could you at least try to be consistent? >> The only situation in which you're not able to share the code is when >> it's part of a work that is based on someone else's work. > Would you care to estimate how many potential improvements that prohibits? Not respecting users' freedoms can never be an improvement. Being unable to combine GPLed code with code under some other license is not something you can blame on the GPL alone. It's always because the other license is less permissive than the GPL, and for all other copyleft licenses, because they were *designed* to be, to weaken the plan of sharing of the GPL. Now go take it up to *their* masterminds. http://www.fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/draft/forking-and-license-patching > There is no way to take any of the rights that the GPL conveys > compared to copyright law without this clause being applied. And what about *other* rights you might have received through other means? > If there is any part where only the GPL applies you must accept the > 2b terms or you can't share it at all. That's false. You only need to abide by the conditions in 2b *if* you choose to modify the program, and distribute modified versions. If you merely run the program, or distribute it in source code form the way you received it, you don't need to abide by any of the conditions of section 2. > I'm talking about what the license actually says and what has to > happen if you comply with it. A license (rather than license agreement) is a grant of permissions to do certain things, nothing but it. The only thing you agree to is to receive those permissions. As long as you operate within those permissions, you're covered. If you operate outside them, you're not covered by that license. If you have another license that grants you that permission, you're still covered. >> Some key points to their assessment is: >> those who learn to cooperate will benefit the most. We believe that >> this cooperation should be based on mutually acceptable terms, and >> that the best basis for cooperation is voluntary contributions. > Do you not agree that cooperation should be voluntary? Or that you > should have the right to make that voluntary choice? No. Quite the opposite. It is a key point. It is by no means wrong. You're the one insisting that it's wrong for lots of developers to not want their contributions to GPLed programs contributed to non-GPLed efforts. Consistency? >> Based on our experience, we advise open-source developers to use the >> least amount of copyleft necessary. >> >> I.e., anecdotal evidence for an unsupportable belief, > Unsupportable? They are talking from experience. In *one* project. That's hardly statistically significant. That's what "anecdotal evidence" means. How many other factors could have influenced the outcome they observed? Do they even mention any? I don't see that they do. The reasoning behind this is akin to observing that the Brazilian president doesn't have one of his fingers, and from that concluding that Brazilians only have 9 fingers. Anecdotal evidence leading to unsupportable conclusions. >> that they'd get more commercial contributions if >> they "permitted commercial exploitation", while fear of commercial >> exploitation was their primary motivator (misguided as it was) for the >> choice of a strong copyleft license in the first place. > Something that you make freely available can't be 'exploited' in any > way that hurts it. It can only be improved. The recipients can be exploited, and that's the harm that the GPL attempts to prevent. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe:
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your wording is too ambiguous and you associate unusual politics with > some of those words so I have no idea what you intend. Tell me which words, and I'll point out they're present in the GPL as well, and you don't seem to have any trouble (mis)interpreting it. >> - I charge the first customer, that hired the software development, >> a fair price for the work I did. > Put yourself on the other side of that fence. Would you be that first > customer for something no single person could afford? If I need it badly enough, sure? If I believe I can recover a fair portion of those costs, sure? >> - This customer is entitled to further distribute it or sell it, since >> it's Free Software. > Yet, the first recipient can also sell it at a lower cost - or give it > away. Why should I care? Remember, I've already been paid by my work. If they do, good for them! >> - I help the customer set up a plan to recover some of the investment: >> I commit to not publishing the software before a certain date, >> except to customers who join an "early access group", and we invite >> others to join this group for a fee that shrinks as more customers >> join. The fee is split over all previously-joining customers. None >> of them are under any obligation to not distribute the software any >> further. >> >> - Once they reach a goal number or a date, I make the software >> available to everyone. > Why? Long before that the early recipients will have made it > available. If they do, per your argument, they'd be losing the ability to recover part of their costs. Why would they? > to make the point clear, let's assume that this work would be > intuitive to use and have no flaws so there is no potential revenue > beyond an initial sale. Because in some strange world, that's how the majority of software is? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >> 2. You may [...] provided that you also meet all of these conditions >> >>> There's no room to interpret that as saying "or some other license >>> you found on some web page" >> >> There's no denying of this possibility, and there couldn't be. >> Welcome to the world of copyright. Seriously, do us all a favor, and >> go talk to a lawyer. Ask the FSF. > The FSF has gone so far as to say that not only does everything > included in the work as a whole when distributed together have to be > covered by the GPL, by also anything that might conceivable be > connected to create a derived work, such as a library distributed > separately. That's correct. All of the permissions (you may...provided that...) are granted over the whole and every piece of the work, and derived versions thereof. This is true regardless of whether any piece of the code is also covered by additional permissions or alternate licenses. Only your imagined license that restricts what you can do and conflicts with other licenses you might have does what you think the GPL does. >> Please stop spreading misinformation. > That's funny - remember this post is in response to my exact quote of > the license section 2b. Do you really consider what the license > actually say as misinformation? When you quote it out of context, you turn it into misinformation, yes. Please. If you are serious about trying to make progress in this discussion, go talk to a lawyer and stop making things up. If you proceed further without talking to a lawyer, the only possible conclusion is that you are only interested in wasting our time. FTR, I did get a lawyer's opinion on that, from the same legal counsel that advises the FSF, who happens to be the author and the copyright holder of AFAIK the largest body of code available under the GPL. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Alexandre Oliva wrote: What are your objections to it, if any? It's not clear. Would that permit a piece of covered code to be included in a CDDL-covered work and vice versa? I'm way beyond the point of believing you care or believe my understanding of software licenses. So you tell me, would it? Your wording is too ambiguous and you associate unusual politics with some of those words so I have no idea what you intend. For the ordinary meaning of the terms, CDDL would be a better match than GPL. History shows that much software that is currently freely shared was once developed as proprietary versions Was it derived from Free Software in the first place? Otherwise your bringing it up is meaningless for the sake of the argument. My argument doesn't have much to do with origins. It is rather that you can't predict the destination or eventual result from the origin. The point is that any improvements in the state of the art in software will eventually help everyone no matter where they happen first as a rising tide floats all boats. And specifically to the point of this discussion, any restrictions on how these improvement can come about, even your favorite one of preventing useful new combinations of available code, are harmful in their inevitable reduction of the quantity and quality of future freely available software. If anything, the payment for my work should be divided by all users, so that each of them pays less. Suppose it is a work that requires 10 people to complete. Will you pay the other 9 up front first, knowing that any of them have the right to redistribute the code before you are paid? I don't see how the question relates with what I proposed. Are we talking past each other? I think so. I am asking how anyone can ever arrange the fair distribution of the cost of development of a large new project over a very large base of users. If you believe this is possible, you might not have a problem paying your co-workers up front, knowing you had a plan to recover the cost. Why would your customer pay for that first copy, knowing no one else has to share the cost? And you can't charge less than the full amount Here's a plan: - I charge the first customer, that hired the software development, a fair price for the work I did. Put yourself on the other side of that fence. Would you be that first customer for something no single person could afford? - This customer is entitled to further distribute it or sell it, since it's Free Software. Yet, the first recipient can also sell it at a lower cost - or give it away. Co-workers on the project can sell or give it away. - I help the customer set up a plan to recover some of the investment: I commit to not publishing the software before a certain date, except to customers who join an "early access group", and we invite others to join this group for a fee that shrinks as more customers join. The fee is split over all previously-joining customers. None of them are under any obligation to not distribute the software any further. - Once they reach a goal number or a date, I make the software available to everyone. Why? Long before that the early recipients will have made it available. There might be exceptions for software that by nature needed a support service or for badly written or incomplete works that need continual updates or training, but to make the point clear, let's assume that this work would be intuitive to use and have no flaws so there is no potential revenue beyond an initial sale. The GPL does respect it, even though it sets forth conditions to stop you from not respecting others' freedoms. The GPL forces a choice between one kind of restriction or another. You're yet to show any evidence of an actual (rather than imagined) restriction in the GPL. I didn't imagine it, I quoted it. I only wish I had imagined it and things like zfs in Linux and Linux drivers in freebsd and OpenSolaris were not prohibited by it. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Alexandre Oliva wrote: 2. You may [...] provided that you also meet all of these conditions There's no room to interpret that as saying "or some other license you found on some web page" There's no denying of this possibility, and there couldn't be. Welcome to the world of copyright. Seriously, do us all a favor, and go talk to a lawyer. Ask the FSF. The FSF has gone so far as to say that not only does everything included in the work as a whole when distributed together have to be covered by the GPL, by also anything that might conceivable be connected to create a derived work, such as a library distributed separately. > Read SFLC's position paper. Only the specific copyright owner's position would matter. Please stop spreading misinformation. That's funny - remember this post is in response to my exact quote of the license section 2b. Do you really consider what the license actually say as misinformation? -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Jul 25, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Which part of this do you imagine you can selectively ignore? If you can, why can't he? :-) 2. You may [...] provided that you also meet all of these conditions > There's no room to interpret that as saying "or some other license > you found on some web page" There's no denying of this possibility, and there couldn't be. Welcome to the world of copyright. Seriously, do us all a favor, and go talk to a lawyer. Ask the FSF. Read SFLC's position paper. Please stop spreading misinformation. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Jul 24, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> What are your objections to it, if any? > It's not clear. Would that permit a piece of covered code to be > included in a CDDL-covered work and vice versa? I'm way beyond the point of believing you care or believe my understanding of software licenses. So you tell me, would it? > History shows that much software that is currently freely shared was > once developed as proprietary versions Was it derived from Free Software in the first place? Otherwise your bringing it up is meaningless for the sake of the argument. >> If anything, the payment for my work should be divided by all >> users, so that each of them pays less. > Suppose it is a work that requires 10 people to complete. Will you > pay the other 9 up front first, knowing that any of them have the > right to redistribute the code before you are paid? I don't see how the question relates with what I proposed. Are we talking past each other? > Why would your customer pay for that first copy, knowing no one else > has to share the cost? And you can't charge less than the full amount Here's a plan: - I charge the first customer, that hired the software development, a fair price for the work I did. - This customer is entitled to further distribute it or sell it, since it's Free Software. - I help the customer set up a plan to recover some of the investment: I commit to not publishing the software before a certain date, except to customers who join an "early access group", and we invite others to join this group for a fee that shrinks as more customers join. The fee is split over all previously-joining customers. None of them are under any obligation to not distribute the software any further. - Once they reach a goal number or a date, I make the software available to everyone. >> The GPL does respect it, even though it sets forth conditions to stop >> you from not respecting others' freedoms. > The GPL forces a choice between one kind of restriction or another. You're yet to show any evidence of an actual (rather than imagined) restriction in the GPL. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Jul 25, 2008, "ksh shrm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is philosophical, spread ur technical knowledge. Do you have any reason to believe that technical knowledge is more important for society than philosophical knowledge? Nevermind that the subthread you entered was about legal knowledge, which is technical rather than philosophical. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Jul 24, 2008, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The GPLv3 is slanted against certain uses. You haven't provided any evidence of that, in spite of my request. So I'll go ahead and provide a rebuttal for both cases you alluded to with an ambiguous term that was used by GPLv3 opponents to attack it based on false premises and misunderstandings. 3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law. Nothing against implementing DRM and releasing it under the GPL, just against preventing users from enjoying freedoms #1 (adapting the software so that it does what you want) and #3 (improving the software and distributing your modifications) by means of threats or lawsuits involving anti-circumvention laws. 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms. The requirement on providing installation information along with user products containing GPLed software ensures users can enjoy freedom #1 (adapting the software so that it does what you want) and #0 (run the software for any purpose), without being blocked by artificial technical measures intended to stop them from running the software for different purposes, that require adaptation to suit the user's needs, on the product where it is included. Yeah, these two, together, counter the interests of DRM, but they don't prohibit anyone from implementing DRM, or from trying to come up with other means to impose DRM on users. To the best of our knowledge, they do make any implementation of DRM under GPLv3 too weak to be useful. Tough luck for DRM proponents. Too bad that they've been trying to do this by not respecting users' 4 essential software freedoms. Not respecting users' essential freedoms is evil, but taking away the freedoms of DRM proponents would be fair, but also evil. So the GPL doesn't take freedom away, it just neutralizes some of the power they depended on to make their technical measures effective. They still have the four freedoms respected, and GPLv3 doesn't conflict with any provision in the FSD or the OSD. In fact, I've been known to claim that Tivoization conflicts not only with the FSD, but also with the OSD, and for several reasons. Unfortunately, I never got an official response from OSI. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
> > Why don't we all just agree that Stallman and the > FSF are the Borg and > > the GPL is the elixir used to assimilate software > (and people). > > > > Resistance is futile. ;-) > > > > Because when your license is strictly a limitation on the > way your > product can be improved, your competitor will continue to > laugh all the > way to the bank. > > I do wonder if Stallman was the inspiration for the GNU > logo, though, > since we've moved into the humor department. > > -- >Les Mikesell > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- The mascot is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildebeest Created by Etienne Suvasa. More can be found here: http://www.gnu.org/graphics/agnuhead.html Here you can find many famous mascots* that are Free** http://chl.be/mascots/ * Free as in free beer or free speech, ** do not know which license they are released under Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
BRUCE STANLEY wrote: Why don't we all just agree that Stallman and the FSF are the Borg and the GPL is the elixir used to assimilate software (and people). Resistance is futile. ;-) Because when your license is strictly a limitation on the way your product can be improved, your competitor will continue to laugh all the way to the bank. I do wonder if Stallman was the inspiration for the GNU logo, though, since we've moved into the humor department. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
--- "Mikkel L. Ellertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Craig White wrote: > > I gather Mikkel, that this means that you have moved from the sidelines > > of criticizing the pointlessness of this thread to participation. > > > > Craig > > > No really. I was just trying to add a bit of humor to it. I have no > hope of convincing anyone of anything except maybe how funny some of > the arguments being put forward are. I will try and remember to > insert the tags in future posts. > > Mikkel > -- > > Why don't we all just agree that Stallman and the FSF are the Borg and the GPL is the elixir used to assimilate software (and people). Resistance is futile. ;-) -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
> Why are they filling up the stacks with discussing on this > topic. Because many users on the list consider it very important. Yes there might be other issues equally important like global warming and World Peace, but that is beyond the scope of this mailing list. > There are many other needy threads that require your tech > advice. There are other places that they need good people to discuss things that help in every day life as well. > > This is philosophical, spread ur technical knowledge. > > Please don't continue this topic again and again. Are you a moderator of the fedora-list?, or are you a self-appointed net cop? > > It's a request! I also have several requests, but they cannot be granted :( I want world peace, I want for the world to be a better place for you and for me. I want people all to respect each other and never consider themselves superior because they are not. I want a world in which people do not take advantage of people which have less resources than they do. I want a world in which each person is equally important. Is that a reasonable request? > > adios > > KSH SHRM > > People don't care how much you know, until they know > how much you care... They care about this issue a great deal and that is why they comment on it and they share their views. While this issue is very controversial, no one person is right or wrong. IT is a passion that comes from within. They care about this thread and they care about GNU, if they did not care, they would not respond to this thread. They have every right to respond to any thread in this list. Neither you nor I should get in their way. Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Gordon Messmer wrote: Any code under a compatible license can be combined with GPL code. The GPL applies to the "work as a whole", but does not remove the license from the other parts which are under compatible licenses. They can be removed from the GPLed work and reused under their original license, as protected by copyright law, and as outlined by the link above. That may be what the link says. It's not what the license actually says. It *is* what the license says. It's just not what you *think* the license says. You're confusing your interpretation of what the license says, for what the license says. Which part of this do you imagine you can selectively ignore? "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." "This License" includes "this section"... There's no room to interpret that as saying "or some other license you found on some web page" or to not include parts of the work that happen to be in separate source files. Yes, you might get way with ignoring it in some circumstances but it would be dishonest at best if you've agreed to the license terms first. It says it does within the distribution as a whole. If the terms don't apply would it mention the work-as-a-whole at all? The terms do apply to the "work as a whole". When a piece of code under a compatible license is removed from the work, it is no longer a part of the whole, and the original license applies. But if you agreed to the GPL in order to be able to share the whole work, you've agreed to apply its terms to all parts. You may get away with not doing that, but then you are not following the terms you agreed to. You do not, and can not, change the license on software that you didn't write. Per section 2b, you cannot distribute any of a GPL'd work unless you apply exactly the GPL terms to all of it. Other copies of that existing work would not be affected, of course, and there might be subsequent circumstances where someone did not have to agree to the GPL on a received copy and could selectively pick a piece out under its original terms. You do not change the license on code by including it in a GPLed work. Any code that you include, written by someone else, remains under their license. If the license does not permit distributing under exactly the GPL terms, you can't include it at all. Otherwise you'd be (sensibly...) permitted to include any code you were allowed to redistribute. But that's not true. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Why are they filling up the stacks with discussing on this topic. There are many other needy threads that require your tech advice. This is philosophical, spread ur technical knowledge. Please don't continue this topic again and again. It's a request! adios KSH SHRM People don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care... On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Gordon Messmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Les Mikesell wrote: > >> Gordon Messmer wrote: >> >>> Any code under a compatible license can be combined with GPL code. The >>> GPL applies to the "work as a whole", but does not remove the license from >>> the other parts which are under compatible licenses. They can be removed >>> from the GPLed work and reused under their original license, as protected by >>> copyright law, and as outlined by the link above. >>> >> >> That may be what the link says. It's not what the license actually says. >> > > It *is* what the license says. It's just not what you *think* the license > says. You're confusing your interpretation of what the license says, for > what the license says. > > And probably not what many copyright holders understand it to say. >> > > Do you know of one, or are you just making a straw man argument? > > The GPL doesn't actually change the terms of the permissively licensed >>> code. >>> >> >> It says it does within the distribution as a whole. If the terms don't >> apply would it mention the work-as-a-whole at all? >> > > The terms do apply to the "work as a whole". When a piece of code under a > compatible license is removed from the work, it is no longer a part of the > whole, and the original license applies. > > You do not, and can not, change the license on software that you didn't > write. You do not change the license on code by including it in a GPLed > work. Any code that you include, written by someone else, remains under > their license. > > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Les Mikesell wrote: Gordon Messmer wrote: Any code under a compatible license can be combined with GPL code. The GPL applies to the "work as a whole", but does not remove the license from the other parts which are under compatible licenses. They can be removed from the GPLed work and reused under their original license, as protected by copyright law, and as outlined by the link above. That may be what the link says. It's not what the license actually says. It *is* what the license says. It's just not what you *think* the license says. You're confusing your interpretation of what the license says, for what the license says. And probably not what many copyright holders understand it to say. Do you know of one, or are you just making a straw man argument? The GPL doesn't actually change the terms of the permissively licensed code. It says it does within the distribution as a whole. If the terms don't apply would it mention the work-as-a-whole at all? The terms do apply to the "work as a whole". When a piece of code under a compatible license is removed from the work, it is no longer a part of the whole, and the original license applies. You do not, and can not, change the license on software that you didn't write. You do not change the license on code by including it in a GPLed work. Any code that you include, written by someone else, remains under their license. -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Craig White wrote: I gather Mikkel, that this means that you have moved from the sidelines of criticizing the pointlessness of this thread to participation. Craig No really. I was just trying to add a bit of humor to it. I have no hope of convincing anyone of anything except maybe how funny some of the arguments being put forward are. I will try and remember to insert the tags in future posts. Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Gordon Messmer wrote: Les Mikesell wrote: One person should not have to bear the development cost of something that could be widely used. But there is no fair mechanism to share it with GPL-covered code. So, you're arguing that it's not fair that you should have to write your own code when GPLed software is available, and it's also not fair that you have to use a compatible license in order to use GPLed work? More specifically, it is not desirable that people are compelled to obtain their software from a monopolistic company because restrictions on otherwise almost-usable free code keep it from being competitive. It is also not desirable that people are deprived from being able to share all the potentially useful combinations of GPL-encumbered code with code that is actually free. While technically every user could obtain his own copy of each and do the necessary work or hire someone to to combine them, the GPL will prevent sharing it in the improved form. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 17:52 -0500, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: > Les Mikesell wrote: > > Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: > >> > Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be immoral. > >>> > >>> Taking away any right is immoral. > >>> > >> So you are saying that commercial, closed source, software is immoral. > >> So selling the software instead of giving it away is also immoral. For > >> one I can agree with you. > > > > Selling something doesn't take away any rights. > > > LOL - right, you don't have any rights when you buy software, except > what the seller gives you. So you don't have any rights that can be > taken away. On the other hand, you don't have any rights to GPL > software except what the GPL gives you. So it can not take any > rights away from you. > > I know - I am being terribly unfair, using the same rules for both > types of software. I gather Mikkel, that this means that you have moved from the sidelines of criticizing the pointlessness of this thread to participation. Craig -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
> elaborate so I can show that your attack is based on false premises. Its not an attack. The GPLv3 is slanted against certain uses. I happen to think that is a *good* thing so I'm hardly attacking you. -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Les Mikesell wrote: Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be immoral. Taking away any right is immoral. So you are saying that commercial, closed source, software is immoral. So selling the software instead of giving it away is also immoral. For one I can agree with you. Selling something doesn't take away any rights. LOL - right, you don't have any rights when you buy software, except what the seller gives you. So you don't have any rights that can be taken away. On the other hand, you don't have any rights to GPL software except what the GPL gives you. So it can not take any rights away from you. I know - I am being terribly unfair, using the same rules for both types of software. Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Gordon Messmer wrote: I strongly recommend that you read: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html Not necessarily, because it can't be included unless the GPL applies. Any code under a compatible license can be combined with GPL code. The GPL applies to the "work as a whole", but does not remove the license from the other parts which are under compatible licenses. They can be removed from the GPLed work and reused under their original license, as protected by copyright law, and as outlined by the link above. That may be what the link says. It's not what the license actually says. And probably not what many copyright holders understand it to say. The GPL doesn't actually change the terms of the permissively licensed code. It says it does within the distribution as a whole. If the terms don't apply would it mention the work-as-a-whole at all? And of course this doesn't help with the prohibition against licenses that are actually free like the MPL and CDDL at all. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Les Mikesell wrote: Gordon Messmer wrote: I strongly recommend that you read: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html I see they recognize one of the problems the GPL causes: "When working in a large GPL’d codebase, it is very easy to change the work in a way that causes the GPL to cover files that, in isolation, were previously covered only by permissive terms." But I don't see any solution. The solution is: don't add GPLed code to *files* that contain code under more permissive licenses. Instead, keep GPL licensed code in separate files in order to more clearly communicate what code is GPL licensed and what code is not. The first paragraph (a summary) addresses your concerns. It illustrates two points: 1) you must comply with the included work's license, because it continues to apply when included in a GPLed work. Not necessarily, because it can't be included unless the GPL applies. Any code under a compatible license can be combined with GPL code. The GPL applies to the "work as a whole", but does not remove the license from the other parts which are under compatible licenses. They can be removed from the GPLed work and reused under their original license, as protected by copyright law, and as outlined by the link above. 2) users who receive your GPLed work may extract the included work and reuse it according to its original license, because it continues to apply when included in a GPLed work. But they can't comply with both licenses at once - they have to choose one or the other. And, as your link points out, this can be problematic. It doesn't point that out at all. The example that you posted above merely indicates that if you put GPL licensed code in the same file as code that is more permissively licensed, it can be very difficult for the recipient of your work to determine what code in that file is covered by which license. The GPL doesn't actually change the terms of the permissively licensed code. -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Les Mikesell wrote: One person should not have to bear the development cost of something that could be widely used. But there is no fair mechanism to share it with GPL-covered code. So, you're arguing that it's not fair that you should have to write your own code when GPLed software is available, and it's also not fair that you have to use a compatible license in order to use GPLed work? I have in my hand the world's smallest violin... -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Alexandre Oliva wrote: I suggest your participate more into these communities, learn about the GNU GPL (and not about some imaginary license you keep bringing about), and then advocate it to the people who don't know. I can't advocate it because I believe its terms are immoral. What's immoral about stopping you from harming others? Locking you in a padded room would do that. And remove a lot of your other choices, as does the GPL. It wouldn't be a good thing to do, though. Proprietary works are a side issue here as I am more concerned about the restrictions against combinations with MPL, CDDL, orginal BSD Ok, good, let's move proprietary out of the picture and assume we have a license that goes: You may run, study, modify and distribute the program, with or without modifications, in source or object format, as long as (i) you don't get in the way of anyone's enjoyment of the rights granted herein as to the software or any derived work thereof, and, (ii) if you choose to distribute the program or derived versions thereof, in source or object code form, you (ii.a) accompany it with complete corresponding source code, (ii.b) apply terms and conditions that extend to all downstream recipients the rights granted herein as to the software an derived works, and (ii.c) you don't enable downstream recipients to get in the way of anyone's enjoyment of the rights granted herein as to the software or any derived work thereof. Let's call this SSCL, for Short Strong Copyleft Licenselet. (Don't assume, not even for a nanosecond, that this is something anyone should use to license software before talking to a lawyer :-) What are your objections to it, if any? It's not clear. Would that permit a piece of covered code to be included in a CDDL-covered work and vice versa? If so, it is less objectionable, but still harmful in the long run if if does not permit proprietary branches to come and go as they will. History shows that much software that is currently freely shared was once developed as proprietary versions and there is every reason to expect more to appear. Anything that discourages proprietary software development will thus almost certainly reduce the quantity and quality of what can be shared in the future. do you think it is reasonable to require payment for your work in any field? Sure. What is not reasonable is to ask for more payment for my work just because more people are using it. One person should not have to bear the development cost of something that could be widely used. But there is no fair mechanism to share it with GPL-covered code. If anything, the payment for my work should be divided by all users, so that each of them pays less. Suppose it is a work that requires 10 people to complete. Will you pay the other 9 up front first, knowing that any of them have the right to redistribute the code before you are paid? Of course this is easy to implement. I just compute how much my work was worth, and charge that amount from whoever hired me to do it. Then I let them distribute the work however they like, even charging for it so as to divide the amount they've already paid. I can also publish the work for anyone to use it, since I've already been paid for it. Right? Why would your customer pay for that first copy, knowing no one else has to share the cost? And you can't charge less than the full amount yourself, knowing that your first customer can undercut your price for any other copies. How can there ever be a reasonably-shared price for a large set of users? How can something that isn't there be taken away? The GNU GPL adds to people's choices. The default is no choice at all. The GPL is no different than a proprietary license in that respect. Actually, it is *very* different. Proprietary licenses most often don't let you copy or distribute the work at all, not under any other license, not under themselves. They don't respect your freedoms #2 and #3 no matter how you try to phrase it. Proprietary licenses let everyone make their own choices. Except perhaps when other restrictions have permitted a monopoly to develop. The GPL does respect it, even though it sets forth conditions to stop you from not respecting others' freedoms. The GPL forces a choice between one kind of restriction or another. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be immoral. Taking away any right is immoral. So you are saying that commercial, closed source, software is immoral. So selling the software instead of giving it away is also immoral. For one I can agree with you. Selling something doesn't take away any rights. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
> >>> it has always been immoral to demand that > others give up their rights. > >> > >> Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be > immoral. > > > > Taking away any right is immoral. > > > So you are saying that commercial, closed source, software > is > immoral. So selling the software instead of giving it away > is also > immoral. For one I can agree with you. I agree too :) > > Mikkel > -- It might be immoral and dishonest, we can get a crack and get on with life :) For one, I have seen many friends share copies of MS Office, with regular key and with a generator if it fails. I try to convince them that OpenOffice is great, but they tell me that I am a crazy, out of this world person that always challenges many things from this world. They say that I am a rebel without a cause. They call me the "Linux Guy", or the "Linux Dude", they will not run linux, just because I use it. They say that Microsoft is also free and works better than linux. "Hey I did not pay for it, it came with my computer", that is what they tell me. How do you explain to them that they paid the "Micro$oft Tax". The same applies here with this never ending question. Why GNU/Linux? Where I prefer to say just Linux? I was wanting to acknowledge the efforts of a person who has been very vocal and nice in the ongoing discussion of the GNU/Linux argument, Mr. Alexandre Oliva. But some other guy, thinks he is so superior that makes all the great effort put on by Mr. Oliva go to waste :( I have seen many arguments for and against. I will say this, be it wrong or right, I do not care. When God created the Ten Commandments, they were set in stone! They were called "The Ten Commandments". Moses was the right hand of God. He did not say Moses's/Ten Commandments. Similarly, the linux kernel was built on top of GNU utilities, the operating system gathered a great deal of strength and was called by many Linux. When this powerful system that we have grown to love, (except the GPL*) was created there was nothing set in stone. They should of named it GNU/Linux from the beginning. The argument(s) to change the name at this stage of the game is better spent fixing the terms of the GPL so that more people can benefit from it, instead of question its restrictions and clauses. I also pose another question, who will have the last word in this never ending thread that eventually will die off and line in the history of fedora-list most famous all time threads of all time! ? Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Jul 24, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Aside from the moral issue of demanding that other people give up > choices of terms on their own contributions The underlying assumption that the GPL does this is incorrect. You can choose whatever terms you like, as long as they don't deny the rights granted through the GPL. I.e., you can add permissions to your own contributions, but you can't use your contributions to subtract from the freedoms any recipient of the whole work would get if the whole work was available only under the GPL. > GPL-encumbered. This phrase does not make sense. It's like e.g. "helium-enhanced paperweight" (assuming it's designed for use in an atmosphere more dense than helium, like ours :-) If anything, helium would reduce the paperweight's ability to keep paper from flying, just like the GPL lifts copyright holder's ability to keep the software from being modified and/or distributed. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Jul 24, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: >> I suggest your participate more into these communities, learn about the GNU >> GPL (and not about some imaginary license you keep bringing about), and then >> advocate it to the people who don't know. > I can't advocate it because I believe its terms are immoral. What's immoral about stopping you from harming others? > Proprietary works are a side issue here as I am more concerned about > the restrictions against combinations with MPL, CDDL, orginal BSD Ok, good, let's move proprietary out of the picture and assume we have a license that goes: You may run, study, modify and distribute the program, with or without modifications, in source or object format, as long as (i) you don't get in the way of anyone's enjoyment of the rights granted herein as to the software or any derived work thereof, and, (ii) if you choose to distribute the program or derived versions thereof, in source or object code form, you (ii.a) accompany it with complete corresponding source code, (ii.b) apply terms and conditions that extend to all downstream recipients the rights granted herein as to the software an derived works, and (ii.c) you don't enable downstream recipients to get in the way of anyone's enjoyment of the rights granted herein as to the software or any derived work thereof. Let's call this SSCL, for Short Strong Copyleft Licenselet. (Don't assume, not even for a nanosecond, that this is something anyone should use to license software before talking to a lawyer :-) What are your objections to it, if any? > do you think it is reasonable to > require payment for your work in any field? Sure. What is not reasonable is to ask for more payment for my work just because more people are using it. If anything, the payment for my work should be divided by all users, so that each of them pays less. Of course this is easy to implement. I just compute how much my work was worth, and charge that amount from whoever hired me to do it. Then I let them distribute the work however they like, even charging for it so as to divide the amount they've already paid. I can also publish the work for anyone to use it, since I've already been paid for it. Right? >> How can something that isn't there be taken away? The GNU GPL adds to >> people's choices. The default is no choice at all. > The GPL is no different than a proprietary license in that respect. Actually, it is *very* different. Proprietary licenses most often don't let you copy or distribute the work at all, not under any other license, not under themselves. They don't respect your freedoms #2 and #3 no matter how you try to phrase it. The GPL does respect it, even though it sets forth conditions to stop you from not respecting others' freedoms. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Les Mikesell wrote: Alexandre Oliva wrote: it has always been immoral to demand that others give up their rights. Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be immoral. Taking away any right is immoral. So you are saying that commercial, closed source, software is immoral. So selling the software instead of giving it away is also immoral. For one I can agree with you. Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Gordon Messmer wrote: The GPL allows you additional rights: you may distribute the work to others. The GPL only allows those rights under limited conditions. Standard EULAs give you *no* additional rights, and furthermore restrict how you can use the software that you received. The difference is vast. Yes, most proprietary licenses make no attempt to prevent distribution of other software that might be combined with it. In the case of libraries, the whole point of their existence is to permit such combinations, whereas the GPL prohibits it. You are so far divorced from reality that I've suspected you of trolling for the entire discussion. I wouldn't have replied, except that I'm sure that *some* people actually believe some of the things you say, and one of the goals of the Free Software movement is to educate people about the truth of the matter. But a proprietary license rarely demands that you place restrictions on how other people can create new things and share them. Proprietary licenses place absolute and total restrictions on how people can create and share new things based on the licensed work. What proprietary library has a license that restricts distribution of other works that use it? -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Les Mikesell wrote: A proprietary license gives some rights that you don't have without it; If you are referring to a EULA: no it doesn't. Standard EULAs don't grant any rights that copyright doesn't. Furthermore, EULAs tend to restrict what you can *use* software for, which is something that no Free Software license does. At all. the GPL gives you some rights you don't have without accepting it. No difference in that respect. Under copyright law, if I give you a work of my own with no license or contract, you may use the work however you like, but you may not distribute it to anyone else. The GPL allows you additional rights: you may distribute the work to others. They receive the work with the same license that you were given. Standard EULAs give you *no* additional rights, and furthermore restrict how you can use the software that you received. The difference is vast. You are so far divorced from reality that I've suspected you of trolling for the entire discussion. I wouldn't have replied, except that I'm sure that *some* people actually believe some of the things you say, and one of the goals of the Free Software movement is to educate people about the truth of the matter. But a proprietary license rarely demands that you place restrictions on how other people can create new things and share them. Proprietary licenses place absolute and total restrictions on how people can create and share new things based on the licensed work. -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Gordon Messmer wrote: Les Mikesell wrote: Its not that simple. Say you receive a copy of a mostly bsd-origin work previously modified by adding a few GPL-covered lines and applying the GPL to the whole as required for #3 at that step. You now agree to the GPL terms in order to be permitted to give someone else a copy of the whole work. Yes, that is true for the "work as a whole". At this point, you've agreed not to pick out parts of the code and distribute under the license of its origin. That's not true. Even if the terms of the GPL *said* that it was true, copyright law doesn't allow it that power. You cannot change the license on a work for which you are not the copyright holder. It doesn't change the license, it denies the right to share the GPL covered portions if you don't apply the GPL terms to the whole. If you can ignore the GPL and do what you want completely under other terms (as on a completely dual-licensed work or picking out only a separately licensed file instead of the rest) you can use the other license. If you need to copy a GPL-only portion, you must agree to apply GPL terms to the whole to get that right. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Gordon Messmer wrote: Your entire argument against the GPL seems to be based on the idea that you repeat, that the GPL replaces the terms of components which are included in a GPL licensed "work as a whole". This is not the case. I strongly recommend that you read: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html I see they recognize one of the problems the GPL causes: "When working in a large GPL’d codebase, it is very easy to change the work in a way that causes the GPL to cover files that, in isolation, were previously covered only by permissive terms." But I don't see any solution. And the total exclusion of material covered by MPL/CDDL (i.e. free in the real sense) is unsolvable. The first paragraph (a summary) addresses your concerns. It illustrates two points: 1) you must comply with the included work's license, because it continues to apply when included in a GPLed work. Not necessarily, because it can't be included unless the GPL applies. 2) users who receive your GPLed work may extract the included work and reuse it according to its original license, because it continues to apply when included in a GPLed work. But they can't comply with both licenses at once - they have to choose one or the other. And, as your link points out, this can be problematic. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Alexandre Oliva wrote: it has always been immoral to demand that others give up their rights. Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be immoral. Taking away any right is immoral. But taking away Immoral rights, that serve the purpose of exerting power over others and taking away their rights and freedoms, no, nothing immoral or wrong about that. There is nothing immoral about the MPL, CDDL, etc., etc.. The GPL was intentionally incompatible because it's only purpose is to force you to choose between giving up your rights or sharing code. You can't give up a right you never had. The GPL (or any Free Software license) doesn't (and can't) take away any right you had. If you look at it that way, then it gives no permission to share at all, and that becomes its only feature. Its purpose is to ensure that all recipients have the four freedoms respected in all programs based on the program licensed under it. Permitting the program to be distributed under whatever terms you like would grant you the power to not respect others' freedoms. I'd much rather you didn't have that power, and if you are a well-meaning person, respectful of others, you shouldn't mind that you don't. A person who is respectful of others cannot demand to take their choices away. Of course I do. There's never a reason for anyone to give up their rights, and no need to withhold the ability to share code. If everyone was respectful of others, there wouldn't be any such reason, indeed. The concept of respect has no meaning unless it is a choice. The GPL takes away your right to make that choice. Or it denies your ability to share. Neither are desirable. > Unfortunately, some people are too selfish, don't think of others, and need society to put some limits on them so that they get stronger reasons to respect others' rights. It doesn't matter that some people are selfish. In terms of software sharing they can never harm what others make available. > That's the reasoning behind copyleft. And it is clearly misguided, given that there is no value in what it provides, and much harm it what it takes away. It has its drawbacks and inconveniences, no doubt, but we're much better off when someone has to decide between respecting others' freedoms or incurring the costs of duplicating code in order to not respect them: at least some of them will then decide to respect others, and, for those who decide not to, they wouldn't have respected them in the first place, so we lose nothing from them. No, we are not better off. We have a sort-of usable OS that is prohibited from having the additions that would make it able to displace the monopoly we've been stuck with for decades. We have prohibitions that make it unlikely that a business model will ever make sense that gives anyone the incentive to promote it. So basically even though there is some fairly good software around, the GPL restrictions make it as though it doesn't exist for most people. So the only actual loss is from incompatibility between Free Software licenses. No the actual loss is in the restrictions on creating improvements in all forms. The GPL either prohibits innovation or prohibits sharing, depending on whether you accept it or not. The point is that the work-as-a-whole clause is an immoral restriction. Granting permissions over the work as a whole is immoral? Requiring such restrictions on other peoples' work as a condition of sharing any is immoral. The thing that's not acceptable is forcing a decision to give up your rights or to not be able to share the code. The only situation in which you're not able to share the code is when it's part of a work that is based on someone else's work. Would you care to estimate how many potential improvements that prohibits? You don't have a right to share that without permission from this someone else. If you pretend that you do, you're misleading and confusing yourself and others. Fine, but since the GPL's purpose is clearly to prohibit such sharing it should simply say so instead of hand-waving about freedom while taking yours away. Depending on your legal system there may or may not be a difference between a license and a contract, but having agreed to: "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." Ok, that's 2b. [I realize I responded before as if you were referring to 3b, sorry.] Now, please realize that this is not to be taken in isolation. This is a condition on one of the various grants of permission for you to copy and distribute the program. There is no way to take any of the rights that the GPL conveys compared to copyright law without this clause being applied. 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Les Mikesell wrote: Its not that simple. Say you receive a copy of a mostly bsd-origin work previously modified by adding a few GPL-covered lines and applying the GPL to the whole as required for #3 at that step. You now agree to the GPL terms in order to be permitted to give someone else a copy of the whole work. Yes, that is true for the "work as a whole". At this point, you've agreed not to pick out parts of the code and distribute under the license of its origin. That's not true. Even if the terms of the GPL *said* that it was true, copyright law doesn't allow it that power. You cannot change the license on a work for which you are not the copyright holder. -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Les Mikesell wrote: Gordon Messmer wrote: In accepting it's terms you give up your freedom to distribute any part of the work under different terms, including any of your own that you might want to add. Since you never had any such freedom under copyright law, you aren't giving anything up. That makes no sense. You do have the freedom and right to license your own work under any terms you want. I apologize. I misunderstood what you wrote. When you wrote that you give up the freedom to distribute "any part" of the work, I thought you meant "any part of your choosing". Still, you are wrong. The GPL grants certain rights to recipients of the "work as a whole". Therefore, when I receive a GPL licensed work, I have all of the rights granted by the GPL to every part of the work. Some parts of the work may be under additional licenses, such as the BSD license. If I choose to copy those portions, I may choose to do so under the terms of the BSD license. I may do this because under copyright law, only the original author of a work may change the terms of his license, unless they specifically transfer copyright to another party (which hasn't happened). Since I am using the BSD licensed portions independently, and not as a part of the "work as a whole" which is licensed under the GPL, that passage of the GPL license does not apply. Your entire argument against the GPL seems to be based on the idea that you repeat, that the GPL replaces the terms of components which are included in a GPL licensed "work as a whole". This is not the case. I strongly recommend that you read: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html The first paragraph (a summary) addresses your concerns. It illustrates two points: 1) you must comply with the included work's license, because it continues to apply when included in a GPLed work. 2) users who receive your GPLed work may extract the included work and reuse it according to its original license, because it continues to apply when included in a GPLed work. -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Jul 24, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> 1. a grant of rights cannot possibly impose restrictions to whatever >> you could do before you received those rights. It's a grant, so it >> adds. It's not a contract, so it can't take away. > Per wikipedia, there are locations where is a difference between a > license and a contract and locations where a license is treated the > same as a contract. Those that use the term 'contract' for unilateral grants have a term to make the distinction. Say, in Brazil, the GPL is regarded as a "contrato benéfico" (=~ "beneficial contract"), i.e., a kind of contract in which only one of the parts becomes encumbered with obligations. I.e., the licensor grants the license and becomes required to respect the licensees' freedoms and to grant the same license to anyone who comes across the program and derived works thereof, whereas the licensee receives permissions (subject to conditions) to modify, copy and distribute the work and works based on it. >> 2. you can grant additional permissions as to any part of the whole, >> if you're the copyright holder for that part. Nothing whatsoever >> stops you from doing that: not copyright law, not any copyright >> license. > You could make it available separately under a different or multiple > licenses It doesn't have to be separately. You can grant multiple additional permissions along with the program. Have a look at GCC, and look for the additional permissions for say libjava, libstdc++ and libgcc. They're all different, but they're all part of GCC. And GCC is linked with libgcc. And GCC contains libiberty, that has files under many different licenses, and also files in the public domain. I.e., the whole is available under the GPL, but there are additional permissions for parts. > But it doesn't matter that someone else has given you permission to > copy a part under different terms if you've agreed not to. The faulty assumption is the "you've agreed not to". See the other message I've just posted. >> Note: "you may do X as long as Y" is not a restriction, it's a grant. >> "you may not do Z under this license" is not a restriction, it's a >> statement of fact, if doing Z requires permission from the copyright >> holder. > It's at least equivalent to a requirement to pay for a copy. Not quite. In general, paying for a copy means you have to pay before you receive the license and the copy, and you don't even get permission to copy or distribute. In fact, in general such copies come with shrink-wrap license agreements (i.e., contracts) that try to take away even fair use right you might have. But the GPL requirements are different in an essential point: you don't owe the author anything whatsoever if you receive the program and just run it. Furthermore, even if you choose to modify, copy or distribute the program, you stil don't owe the author anything. The conditions set forth make it clear that you "owe" the *recipients* respect for their freedoms, and that there's nearly nothing you have to do to clear this "debt": offer them the source code you have, under the same terms and conditions you got yourself, and refrain from getting in their way should they want to enjoy their freedoms. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Jul 24, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: > it has always been immoral to demand that others give up their rights. Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be immoral. But taking away Immoral rights, that serve the purpose of exerting power over others and taking away their rights and freedoms, no, nothing immoral or wrong about that. >> Other copyleft and non-copyleft licenses followed that were designed >> specifically to be incompatible with the GPL, to prevent code sharing. > BSD license whose intent is obviously to permit code sharing but not > take away anyone's rights predates the GPL and certainly GPLv2. The BSD licenses are not copyleft licenses. They are permissive Free Software licenses. One of them is GPL-compatible, the other isn't. > The GPL was intentionally incompatible because it's only purpose is > to force you to choose between giving up your rights or sharing > code. You can't give up a right you never had. The GPL (or any Free Software license) doesn't (and can't) take away any right you had. Its purpose is to ensure that all recipients have the four freedoms respected in all programs based on the program licensed under it. Permitting the program to be distributed under whatever terms you like would grant you the power to not respect others' freedoms. I'd much rather you didn't have that power, and if you are a well-meaning person, respectful of others, you shouldn't mind that you don't. >> Can't fault the GPL for that, can you? > Of course I do. There's never a reason for anyone to give up their > rights, and no need to withhold the ability to share code. If everyone was respectful of others, there wouldn't be any such reason, indeed. There wouldn't be reasons for laws either. Unfortunately, some people are too selfish, don't think of others, and need society to put some limits on them so that they get stronger reasons to respect others' rights. That's the reasoning behind copyleft. It has its drawbacks and inconveniences, no doubt, but we're much better off when someone has to decide between respecting others' freedoms or incurring the costs of duplicating code in order to not respect them: at least some of them will then decide to respect others, and, for those who decide not to, they wouldn't have respected them in the first place, so we lose nothing from them. So the only actual loss is from incompatibility between Free Software licenses. As I explained on the thread from one month ago on fedora-devel, exceptions are often possible (see 10. in GPLv2), and if they're too hard to obtain, it's because of legal maintainability of the projects, or because the licensors aren't really interested in respecting your freedoms (this unfortunately happens), or in granting you power to make it easier for you to erode others' freedoms (this fortunately happens). >> If you think that's >> unacceptable, why did you accept the less permissive or artificially >> incompatible license that got you into this situation? > In general the terms I'm speaking of are more permissive than the GPL If they were strictly more permissive on all accounts, then they would be compatible. The original BSD license, for example, with the advertisement clause, didn't create a major problem as long as only UCB made that demand. But as you combined code from multiple sources with multiple such demands, it would soon have become a major hassle to abide by all those advertisement clauses, to the point of making it prohibitive. Now, the modified BSD license, that came up after years of negotiations between UCB, the FSF and others, lifts this burden and thus becomes compatible with the GPL. > The point is that the work-as-a-whole clause is an immoral > restriction. Granting permissions over the work as a whole is immoral? > The thing that's not acceptable is forcing a decision to give up your > rights or to not be able to share the code. The only situation in which you're not able to share the code is when it's part of a work that is based on someone else's work. You don't have a right to share that without permission from this someone else. If you pretend that you do, you're misleading and confusing yourself and others. > Depending on your legal system there may or may not be a difference > between a license and a contract, but having agreed to: > "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in > whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any > part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third > parties under the terms of this License." Ok, that's 2b. [I realize I responded before as if you were referring to 3b, sorry.] Now, please realize that this is not to be taken in isolation. This is a condition on one of the various grants of permission for you to copy and distribute the program. 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: I can't advocate it because I believe its terms are immoral. That's rich! Made my day already :) Aside from the moral issue of demanding that other people give up choices of terms on their own contributions, consider the sheer bulk of what it prohibits compared to what it allows: It permits the permutation of all combinations of all GPL-encumbered code. It prohibits the permutation of all combinations of GPL-encumbered code with any that cannot be GPL-encumbered. As long as there is any code with non-GPL terms, the latter set is obviously larger. Or, if you are familiar with software development, you might agree that about 10% of the time/effort goes into the initial implementation of a new program and 90% goes into testing, debugging, and subsequent maintenance. So in a typical GPL case, the person who does that initial 10% limits the choices of how the subsequent 90% can be done. It's just wrong any way you look at it. You seem to consider "sharing" proprietary software is sharing. I think that's wrong since to me it is not sharing but, instead, gaining control. No, I think proprietary software is reasonable I think this wrap ups very well all your argument. You start from a premise that I fundamentally reject as absurd, and from the absurd anything can be deduced. Proprietary works are a side issue here as I am more concerned about the restrictions against combinations with MPL, CDDL, orginal BSD and other less resticted licenses, but do you think it is reasonable to require payment for your work in any field? And if so, how is creating software different from other work? To require payment for my work? Absolutely. Now how do you define payment? I can see many forms of payment: * cash * self satisfaction * benemerity * gratefulness * ... And I fully support that people develop GPL'ed software for hire. That's possible but except in unlikely circumstances, one customer must pay the full cost of development. There is no model for fair distribution of development cost among a large set of users since the GPL permits the first customer to give copies away freely. but BSD, MIT, MPL, CDDL, Apache, and similar less restricted licenses are about sharing. GPL is about taking away other people's choices. How can something that isn't there be taken away? The GNU GPL adds to people's choices. The default is no choice at all. The GPL is no different than a proprietary license in that respect. Now I am *sure* you are trolling. A proprietary license gives some rights that you don't have without it; the GPL gives you some rights you don't have without accepting it. No difference in that respect. But a proprietary license rarely demands that you place restrictions on how other people can create new things and share them. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 08:35:23AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: >> I suggest your participate more into these communities, learn about the GNU >> GPL (and not about some imaginary license you keep bringing about), and then >> advocate it to the people who don't know. > > I can't advocate it because I believe its terms are immoral. That's rich! Made my day already :) You seem to consider "sharing" proprietary software is sharing. I think that's wrong since to me it is not sharing but, instead, gaining control. >>> No, I think proprietary software is reasonable >> >> I think this wrap ups very well all your argument. You start from a >> premise that I fundamentally reject as absurd, and from the absurd >> anything can be deduced. > > Proprietary works are a side issue here as I am more concerned about the > restrictions against combinations with MPL, CDDL, orginal BSD and other > less resticted licenses, but do you think it is reasonable to require > payment for your work in any field? And if so, how is creating software > different from other work? To require payment for my work? Absolutely. Now how do you define payment? I can see many forms of payment: * cash * self satisfaction * benemerity * gratefulness * ... And I fully support that people develop GPL'ed software for hire. >>> but BSD, MIT, MPL, CDDL, Apache, and similar less restricted >>> licenses are about sharing. GPL is about taking away other people's >>> choices. >> >> How can something that isn't there be taken away? The GNU GPL adds to >> people's choices. The default is no choice at all. > > The GPL is no different than a proprietary license in that respect. Now I am *sure* you are trolling. Rui -- Kallisti! Today is Setting Orange, the 59th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 07:52:31AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > But you must give up your freedom and rights or you are unable to > participate in distributing these things as part of a work that > contains any GPL-covered material. The "or" denounces your syllogism. The "must" is inappropriate when there's an alternative. >>> The alternative is not sharing any GPL-encumbered code at all. Do >>> you consider that a reasonable alternative? >> >> People have been sharing and modifying software licensed with the GNU GPL >> for ages, isn't that alternative somewhat imaginary? > > No, very few people I know other than myself even know GPL software > exists. I suggest your participate more into these communities, learn about the GNU GPL (and not about some imaginary license you keep bringing about), and then advocate it to the people who don't know. >> You seem to consider "sharing" proprietary software is sharing. I think >> that's wrong since to me it is not sharing but, instead, gaining control. > > No, I think proprietary software is reasonable I think this wrap ups very well all your argument. You start from a premise that I fundamentally reject as absurd, and from the absurd anything can be deduced. > but BSD, MIT, MPL, CDDL, > Apache, and similar less restricted licenses are about sharing. GPL is > about taking away other people's choices. How can something that isn't there be taken away? The GNU GPL adds to people's choices. The default is no choice at all. Rui -- Keep the Lasagna flying! Today is Setting Orange, the 59th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 07:47:45AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:29:26PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: >>> In general the terms I'm speaking of are more permissive than the GPL >>> and the GPL is the one that was intentionally incompatible, but >>> that's not the point. The point is that the work-as-a-whole clause >>> is an immoral restriction. >> >> Don't include GPL'ed software, then. > > OK, but how is the useful to anyone? It is useful to hundreds of thousands of developers of software under compatible licenses who do include it, so I reject your premise that it isn't useful to anyone. Rui -- Fnord. Today is Setting Orange, the 59th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 07:52:31AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: But you must give up your freedom and rights or you are unable to participate in distributing these things as part of a work that contains any GPL-covered material. The "or" denounces your syllogism. The "must" is inappropriate when there's an alternative. The alternative is not sharing any GPL-encumbered code at all. Do you consider that a reasonable alternative? People have been sharing and modifying software licensed with the GNU GPL for ages, isn't that alternative somewhat imaginary? No, very few people I know other than myself even know GPL software exists. I suggest your participate more into these communities, learn about the GNU GPL (and not about some imaginary license you keep bringing about), and then advocate it to the people who don't know. I can't advocate it because I believe its terms are immoral. You seem to consider "sharing" proprietary software is sharing. I think that's wrong since to me it is not sharing but, instead, gaining control. No, I think proprietary software is reasonable I think this wrap ups very well all your argument. You start from a premise that I fundamentally reject as absurd, and from the absurd anything can be deduced. Proprietary works are a side issue here as I am more concerned about the restrictions against combinations with MPL, CDDL, orginal BSD and other less resticted licenses, but do you think it is reasonable to require payment for your work in any field? And if so, how is creating software different from other work? but BSD, MIT, MPL, CDDL, Apache, and similar less restricted licenses are about sharing. GPL is about taking away other people's choices. How can something that isn't there be taken away? The GNU GPL adds to people's choices. The default is no choice at all. The GPL is no different than a proprietary license in that respect. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 07:47:45AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:29:26PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: In general the terms I'm speaking of are more permissive than the GPL and the GPL is the one that was intentionally incompatible, but that's not the point. The point is that the work-as-a-whole clause is an immoral restriction. Don't include GPL'ed software, then. OK, but how is the useful to anyone? It is useful to hundreds of thousands of developers of software under compatible licenses who do include it, so I reject your premise that it isn't useful to anyone. I didn't mean no GPL-encumbered code could be useful at all. I meant "how is your demand to not include any GPL'd software when sharing useful?". -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: But you must give up your freedom and rights or you are unable to participate in distributing these things as part of a work that contains any GPL-covered material. The "or" denounces your syllogism. The "must" is inappropriate when there's an alternative. The alternative is not sharing any GPL-encumbered code at all. Do you consider that a reasonable alternative? People have been sharing and modifying software licensed with the GNU GPL for ages, isn't that alternative somewhat imaginary? No, very few people I know other than myself even know GPL software exists. And the restrictions are largely responsible for keeping it that way for those ages. You seem to consider "sharing" proprietary software is sharing. I think that's wrong since to me it is not sharing but, instead, gaining control. No, I think proprietary software is reasonable, but BSD, MIT, MPL, CDDL, Apache, and similar less restricted licenses are about sharing. GPL is about taking away other people's choices. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:29:26PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: In general the terms I'm speaking of are more permissive than the GPL and the GPL is the one that was intentionally incompatible, but that's not the point. The point is that the work-as-a-whole clause is an immoral restriction. Don't include GPL'ed software, then. OK, but how is the useful to anyone? -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:34:44PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> But you must give up your freedom and rights or you are unable to >>> participate in distributing these things as part of a work that >>> contains any GPL-covered material. >> >> The "or" denounces your syllogism. The "must" is inappropriate when >> there's an alternative. > > The alternative is not sharing any GPL-encumbered code at all. Do you > consider that a reasonable alternative? People have been sharing and modifying software licensed with the GNU GPL for ages, isn't that alternative somewhat imaginary? You seem to consider "sharing" proprietary software is sharing. I think that's wrong since to me it is not sharing but, instead, gaining control. Rui -- Fnord. Today is Setting Orange, the 59th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:29:26PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > In general the terms I'm speaking of are more permissive than the GPL > and the GPL is the one that was intentionally incompatible, but that's > not the point. The point is that the work-as-a-whole clause is an > immoral restriction. Don't include GPL'ed software, then. > No, but it means you haven't read or understood what accepting the > license takes away from you. (...) > Depending on your legal system there may or may not be a difference > between a license and a contract, but having agreed to: Regardless of legal system, you don't accept the GNU GPL. That's moronic since the GNU GPL is unilateral. "You do it this way, or you don't by default of copyright" > And here's a more pragmatic take on the issue. Someone who says they > got more contributions back after changing their licenses from GPL to > something non-copyleft along with eliminating the moral issue of taking > away the choices of subsequent contributors: > http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2001/12/12/transition.html?page=1 It doesn't take away the choices of subsequent contributons since they didn't have any by default. It *grants* extra freedoms to those by defaut of the law. That these extra freedoms have as a rule of thumb "if you distribute, you must give back under the same terms" is a *plus* and not a minus. What you're "crying" about is about the GNU GPL not giving the power to restrict freedom. An that is very good indeed, keep crying, at least I don't care for crocodile tears. Rui -- Frink! Today is Setting Orange, the 59th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Alexandre Oliva wrote: But you must give up your freedom and rights or you are unable to participate in distributing these things as part of a work that contains any GPL-covered material. The "or" denounces your syllogism. The "must" is inappropriate when there's an alternative. The alternative is not sharing any GPL-encumbered code at all. Do you consider that a reasonable alternative? As explained above, because of copyright law, you end up without that freedom and right by default, even though you should have them. You've inserted a radical political opinion there... You are entitled to have it, of course. The GPL respects the freedom to (re)distribute the program that you're entitled to, Only if you choose the alternative of giving up your own rights. restoring your right to do that which copyright law took away, but not restoring your power to control how others can use the work that you're using to derive another work you want to distribute. I don't have a lot of power. Why should I give up any in order to share code? The GPL doesn't require you to give up anything. It requires you to give up the ability to share anything but GPL-encumbered parts in the covered work. And to immorally take away that same ability to others who might contribute to it. It only restores some of your rights that copyright law took away, so that essential freedoms are respected for you and for every other user. Requiring contributors to give up their rights is not respecting anyone's freedom. But the point is that you also cannot impose fewer restrictions, 1. a grant of rights cannot possibly impose restrictions to whatever you could do before you received those rights. It's a grant, so it adds. It's not a contract, so it can't take away. Per wikipedia, there are locations where is a difference between a license and a contract and locations where a license is treated the same as a contract. I won't pretend to know the difference except that it means you are wrong in at least some places. 2. you can grant additional permissions as to any part of the whole, if you're the copyright holder for that part. Nothing whatsoever stops you from doing that: not copyright law, not any copyright license. You could make it available separately under a different or multiple licenses but as part of a combined work the GPL says its own terms must apply to all components of the work when any part needs acceptance of the GPL to copy/modify/distribute. Please point out any exception you can find to section 2b. Here: * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions * are met: * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the *documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * 3. [rescinded 22 July 1999] * 4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors *may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software *without specific prior written permission. additional permissions on top of those granted by the GPL. No matter what the GPL says, you still have the permissions above as to any file in which these permissions are written down. But it doesn't matter that someone else has given you permission to copy a part under different terms if you've agreed not to. At least not in the locations where a license is treated like a contract. Or if you are used to honoring your agreements. What makes you think they're revoked just because the whole is under the GPL? Because you gave up the choice to use any other terms on a component when you agreed to the GPL demand covering the work as a whole. You agreed that "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole." Without that agreement you are restricted from distributing anything covered by the GPL. Only your flawed theory that the GPL imposes restrictions that would somehow take away rights you had or received with the program. Show what part of the GPL says "you give up rights you had before", or that "imposes restrictions", or hire a lawyer to explain this to you. It is your agreement to its terms that impose these restrictions. Or you have the copyright restrictions instead. Note: "you may do X as long as Y" is not a restriction, it's a grant. "you may not do Z under this license" is not a restriction, it's a statement of fact, if doing Z requires permission from the copyright holder. It's at least equivalent to a requirement to pay for a copy. I might be able to afford to pay some reasonable amount for a license, but I don't have much power and can't afford to give any up - and I consider it
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Alexandre Oliva wrote: Your freedom to distribute the improvement is respected by the GPL, but not by the combination of the licenses you accepted. Why do you consider that acceptable? It's undesirable, indeed, but what's to stop people from inventing intentionally-incompatible licenses or accepting them? The GNU GPL was the first copyleft license. It was incompatible with other licenses that preceded it because they did not grant the rights the GPL was intended to grant, and it was not deemed appropriate to give up those rights for the sake of compatibility with them. Can't really fault the GPL for that, can you? Yes, it has always been immoral to demand that others give up their rights. Other copyleft and non-copyleft licenses followed that were designed specifically to be incompatible with the GPL, to prevent code sharing. You have the both motives and the timeline backwards. For example, the BSD license whose intent is obviously to permit code sharing but not take away anyone's rights predates the GPL and certainly GPLv2. The GPL was intentionally incompatible because it's only purpose is to force you to choose between giving up your rights or sharing code. Can't fault the GPL for that, can you? Of course I do. There's never a reason for anyone to give up their rights, and no need to withhold the ability to share code. If you think that's unacceptable, why did you accept the less permissive or artificially incompatible license that got you into this situation? In general the terms I'm speaking of are more permissive than the GPL and the GPL is the one that was intentionally incompatible, but that's not the point. The point is that the work-as-a-whole clause is an immoral restriction. If you accepted them, you think that's acceptable. If you don't want to accept them, talk the copyright holders into changing their minds and permit you to respect others' freedoms while not granting them the power to not respect third parties' freedoms. The thing that's not acceptable is forcing a decision to give up your rights or to not be able to share the code. Anyhow, where does this leave you? Does "barking up the wrong tree" mean anything to you? That is, why do you believe is it right for one license to have any affect on the terms of another? Moo. Does "when did you stop beating your wife?" mean anything to you? :-) No, but it means you haven't read or understood what accepting the license takes away from you. I don't believe that is right, and the GPL doesn't do any such thing. This license you invented that you call GPL and spend your life complaining about might do that, but then, that's between you and your imagination. Depending on your legal system there may or may not be a difference between a license and a contract, but having agreed to: "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." consider all of the possibilities you have given up the right to create and share. Just in sheer volume it prohibits much more than it can ever permit. And here's a more pragmatic take on the issue. Someone who says they got more contributions back after changing their licenses from GPL to something non-copyleft along with eliminating the moral issue of taking away the choices of subsequent contributors: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2001/12/12/transition.html?page=1 -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Jul 23, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> Your freedom to distribute the improvement is respected >> by the GPL, but not by the combination of the licenses you accepted. > Why do you consider that acceptable? It's undesirable, indeed, but what's to stop people from inventing intentionally-incompatible licenses or accepting them? The GNU GPL was the first copyleft license. It was incompatible with other licenses that preceded it because they did not grant the rights the GPL was intended to grant, and it was not deemed appropriate to give up those rights for the sake of compatibility with them. Can't really fault the GPL for that, can you? Other copyleft and non-copyleft licenses followed that were designed specifically to be incompatible with the GPL, to prevent code sharing. Can't fault the GPL for that, can you? If you think that's unacceptable, why did you accept the less permissive or artificially incompatible license that got you into this situation? If you accepted them, you think that's acceptable. If you don't want to accept them, talk the copyright holders into changing their minds and permit you to respect others' freedoms while not granting them the power to not respect third parties' freedoms. Anyhow, where does this leave you? Does "barking up the wrong tree" mean anything to you? > That is, why do you believe is it right for one license to have any > affect on the terms of another? Moo. Does "when did you stop beating your wife?" mean anything to you? :-) I don't believe that is right, and the GPL doesn't do any such thing. This license you invented that you call GPL and spend your life complaining about might do that, but then, that's between you and your imagination. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Jul 23, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gordon Messmer wrote: > You do have the freedom and right to license > your own work under any terms you want. Nope. You have that legal right, but you're only operating within your freedom as long as your choice respects others' freedom. If it doesn't, then you're using your right to exert power. > You do have the freedom and right to redistribute other works under > other licenses, free or with other arrangements. You are entitled to the freedom to redistribute works, subject to respecting others' freedoms. The choice of license is not part of freedom, it's part of power. If there wasn't copyright law, nobody would need any license from you. Copyright law creates a legal right that gives you power to control how others can use your own. And then, as a consequence of this very law, you don't always have a right to redistribute works. Others are legally entitled to exert power over you, even when that conflicts with your freedom. So, no, because of copyright, you may end up without the right and without the freedom you claim above. > But you must give up your freedom and rights or you are unable to > participate in distributing these things as part of a work that > contains any GPL-covered material. The "or" denounces your syllogism. The "must" is inappropriate when there's an alternative. As explained above, because of copyright law, you end up without that freedom and right by default, even though you should have them. The GPL respects the freedom to (re)distribute the program that you're entitled to, restoring your right to do that which copyright law took away, but not restoring your power to control how others can use the work that you're using to derive another work you want to distribute. The GPL doesn't require you to give up anything. It only restores some of your rights that copyright law took away, so that essential freedoms are respected for you and for every other user. > But the point is that you also cannot impose fewer restrictions, 1. a grant of rights cannot possibly impose restrictions to whatever you could do before you received those rights. It's a grant, so it adds. It's not a contract, so it can't take away. 2. you can grant additional permissions as to any part of the whole, if you're the copyright holder for that part. Nothing whatsoever stops you from doing that: not copyright law, not any copyright license. > Please point out any exception you can find to section 2b. Here: * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions * are met: * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the *documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * 3. [rescinded 22 July 1999] * 4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors *may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software *without specific prior written permission. additional permissions on top of those granted by the GPL. No matter what the GPL says, you still have the permissions above as to any file in which these permissions are written down. What makes you think they're revoked just because the whole is under the GPL? Only your flawed theory that the GPL imposes restrictions that would somehow take away rights you had or received with the program. Show what part of the GPL says "you give up rights you had before", or that "imposes restrictions", or hire a lawyer to explain this to you. Note: "you may do X as long as Y" is not a restriction, it's a grant. "you may not do Z under this license" is not a restriction, it's a statement of fact, if doing Z requires permission from the copyright holder. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Alexandre Oliva wrote: Those are not (pure) licenses, those are license agreements. Agreements as in contracts. Contracts are meeting of minds and mutual obligations. The GPL is a unilateral grant of rights. Not even close. You must accept it or you are not free to redistribute existing code. It's the kind of the opposite, actually. By modifying the program or distributing it under the terms of the license, you indicate your acceptance, and there's no other way AFAIK to indicate acceptance. Indication isn't quite the point, you either accept them or not. In accepting it's terms you give up your freedom to distribute any part of the work under different terms This is factually incorrect, and the most trivial example is that in which a program is available under more than one license. Yes, but you have accepted the restriction to apply only the GPL terms - or not. If not, then you can't do anything copyright would prohibit to the GPL-only components. The restrictions are what apply if you don't give up the freedom to choose you own terms for your own additions, or to add third party components already under different terms. Where in the GPL is the "agreement not to do", or even the "requirement not to do" that you claim one would have to agree with in order to receive the permissions? You agree to the whole thing - or not. There are a couple of 'or' choices in there, like how to distribute source, but other than that it is a yes or no choice, covering all of the work as a whole. You don't have just have 'permission' to redistribute under GPL terms, you have a mandate not to distribute any part of the whole under any other terms. It's not unilateral - you must give up your freedom. That's the result of a mistaken reading, see above. You're still holding to this notion of restriction that you made up or were misled to believe in. Please show me the part that permits selectively treating components differently. Permissions aren't the point - it is what you agree to do. You agreed to accept the right to do a number of things. But what you must agree to in the GPL covers the work as a whole, not separate parts. Yep. No denying you have the rights you accepted. So what? How *could* that take away any other rights you had before, given that a copyright license can only grant rights? The same way any agreement you make works. If you agree to do something, it doesn't matter that previously you had the right not to do it. If you accept the GPL terms you give up the rights you had before. Yes, if the whole work is dual-licensed. But if only a component is, you'll have to choose how you want to handle the work as a whole. Can you back this up? Why do you think dual-licensing of the whole is special in any way? You only have to agree to the GPL terms to obtain the rights it confers over GPL-encumbered parts. If some other license in a dual-licensed work provides sufficient rights, you can ignore the GPL and not accept its terms. However, if you do accept the GPL, there is no way to selectively ignore it's work-as-a-whole clause. And then the code is not free, and you are not free to redistribute. That's not *re*distribution, BTW. If you had received it like that, then someone else had a right to give it to you; if it was under a Free Software License, you most definitely have a right to pass it on, i.e., to *re*distribute it. You're talking about a work you created yourself, so that's distribution of a modified work, freedom #3, not redistribution, freedom #2. Its not that simple. Say you receive a copy of a mostly bsd-origin work previously modified by adding a few GPL-covered lines and applying the GPL to the whole as required for #3 at that step. You now agree to the GPL terms in order to be permitted to give someone else a copy of the whole work. At this point, you've agreed not to pick out parts of the code and distribute under the license of its origin. They withhold your freedom to redistribute Your freedom to redistribute is respected. There's no such thing as "freedom to choose whatever license you want" in the FSD. Choosing licenses is not freedom, it's power. Then your power is taken away if you would like to improve a work covered by the GPL. Now you're talking about freedom again. Your freedom to improve the work exists. Only if you give up the right to choose the terms for your own work or to add existing components under any other terms. Your freedom to distribute the improvement is respected by the GPL, but not by the combination of the licenses you accepted. Why do you consider that acceptable? That is, why do you believe is it right for one license to have any affect on the terms of another? -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Gordon Messmer wrote: In accepting it's terms you give up your freedom to distribute any part of the work under different terms, including any of your own that you might want to add. Since you never had any such freedom under copyright law, you aren't giving anything up. That makes no sense. You do have the freedom and right to license your own work under any terms you want. You do have the freedom and right to redistribute other works under other licenses, free or with other arrangements. But you must give up your freedom and rights or you are unable to participate in distributing these things as part of a work that contains any GPL-covered material. You don't have just have 'permission' to redistribute under GPL terms, you have a mandate not to distribute any part of the whole under any other terms. It's not unilateral - you must give up your freedom. I don't believe that to actually be the case. You've repeatedly insisted that the GPL replaces other license's terms, but I believe that you are mistaken. In the case of a fully dual-licensed work, you would be able to use the terms of the other license and ignore the GPL. In the case of a combination, where any part of the work is strictly-GPL you will be required to accept the GPL terms to do anything copyright would prohibit. And I see no possible way to accept the terms of the GPL on anything less than the work-as-a-whole as specificied in section 2b. If you take Project X, distributed under the GPL, and implement feature A under a BSD license, when you distribute your improved version, the GPL protects the users by guaranteeing them all of the rights covered by the GPL. That is, you may not impose additional restrictions on their use or redistribution of your improved version of Project X. But the point is that you also cannot impose fewer restrictions, or different restrictions, or no restrictions on the component you add or include from an existing less restricted project. This component can exist on its own with other terms, but becomes encumbered by the GPL in situations where you are required to accept that license on any part of the work. This is what Alexandre is referring to as "power"; if you placed additional restrictions on your users, you would be exerting a kind of power granted by copyright law and restricting their freedom. It is not freedom, it is a restriction itself. However, the GPL does not replace the terms of your license on your code. If you grant users redistribution rights to the source code for feature A under a BSD license, then those users may use *that source code* in any way that's allowed by your license. They can't use the entire work under your more permissive license, but they can use the source code that *you* wrote, as governed by *your* license. Please point out any exception you can find to section 2b. Or how you can 'unaccept' the terms the GPL specifies once you have accepted them. Do you see, now, how the "work as a whole" clause does not replace the terms of your license? No, I don't see that. I see no way to accept any GPL terms other that the way it specifies - covering the work as a whole. If you could, you could as easily include proprietary components with different licenses and ignore the terms on that part. The terms of your license will always apply to your code, and no other license can change that under copyright law. The GPL's terms must only be met when distributing the combined work. Accepting the GPL terms is what you must do to be permitted to distribute or anything prohibited by copyright. But then there is no provision for unaccepting it while you do something it wouldn't permit to some part of the work. At that point you've agreed that you wouldn't. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:46:53AM -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote: >> Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >> In accepting it's terms you give up your freedom to distribute any part >> of the work under different terms, including any of your own that you >> might want to add. > > Since you never had any such freedom under copyright law, you aren't > giving anything up. Just because it's legal it doesn't mean it's fair. For several years having slaves was legal, and yet it was still unfair for all those people enslaved. You don't have that freedom under copyright law, but it is fair that you do have it. The GNU GPL (through the Copyleft concept) uses Copyright to grant you back that freedom, albeit in a way that forbids you to remove that freedom at a later stage, which is good and fair. Rui -- You are what you see. Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 58th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 14:54 +0930, Tim wrote: > Fish in the sea are free. > Can I make money from them? > Yes, but you'll need a boat. > Can I have a boat for free? > > The last line can be answered both ways, that's deliberate. You want > the fish for free, and a free boat. Having set the example, and seen others run away with it, it wasn't quite what I was thinking (even though amusing). The fish are free, really free. It's the boat that's iffy... You can buy a boat, and it's yours to do with as you will. Of course you mightn't be able to afford to buy a boat. Alternatively, you can use someone else's boat, and you'll be driving around with their sign on the side. And using their boat subject to their terms. Alternatively, you can build your own boat. Get the bits you need, and the tools, and the boat's yours. Building your own tools might be a bit hard, if you're desperate to not be reliant on someone else, but the cost of those tools are still going to be cheaper than buying a boat.\. The grizzles about being hamstrung by GPL conditions don't apply if you don't use something GPL'ed while building. You don't *have* to. It's your choice to make use of cost-free, but not condition-free, GPL tools. Use alternatives, if you don't want their conditions. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -r 2.6.25.10-86.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Jul 23, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> Licenses often impose terms you must meet as a condition of granting >>> those rights. >> >> Those are not (pure) licenses, those are license agreements. >> Agreements as in contracts. Contracts are meeting of minds and mutual >> obligations. The GPL is a unilateral grant of rights. > Not even close. You must accept it or you are not free to redistribute > existing code. It's the kind of the opposite, actually. By modifying the program or distributing it under the terms of the license, you indicate your acceptance, and there's no other way AFAIK to indicate acceptance. > In accepting it's terms you give up your freedom to > distribute any part of the work under different terms This is factually incorrect, and the most trivial example is that in which a program is available under more than one license. >> Still, where's the "agreement not to do" you allegedly agree to when >> you accept the license, that you referred to as "prohibitions" and >> "restrictions" of the GPL? > The restrictions are what apply if you don't give up the freedom to > choose you own terms for your own additions, or to add third party > components already under different terms. Where in the GPL is the "agreement not to do", or even the "requirement not to do" that you claim one would have to agree with in order to receive the permissions? > You don't have just have 'permission' to redistribute under GPL terms, > you have a mandate not to distribute any part of the whole under any > other terms. It's not unilateral - you must give up your freedom. That's the result of a mistaken reading, see above. You're still holding to this notion of restriction that you made up or were misled to believe in. >>> Permissions aren't the point - it is what you agree to do. >> You agreed to accept the right to do a number of things. > But what you must agree to in the GPL covers the work as a whole, not > separate parts. Yep. No denying you have the rights you accepted. So what? How *could* that take away any other rights you had before, given that a copyright license can only grant rights? > Yes, if the whole work is dual-licensed. But if only a component is, > you'll have to choose how you want to handle the work as a whole. Can you back this up? Why do you think dual-licensing of the whole is special in any way? > And then the code is not free, and you are not free to redistribute. That's not *re*distribution, BTW. If you had received it like that, then someone else had a right to give it to you; if it was under a Free Software License, you most definitely have a right to pass it on, i.e., to *re*distribute it. You're talking about a work you created yourself, so that's distribution of a modified work, freedom #3, not redistribution, freedom #2. Other than that, your statement is correct. You chose to create a program that you cannot distribute. You chose to create non-Free Software. That's quite unfortunate, but there are many other ways to do that, and as much as we might wish there wasn't, there's nothing a copyright license can or should do to prevent non-Free Software from being created. >>> They withhold your freedom to redistribute >> Your freedom to redistribute is respected. There's no such thing as >> "freedom to choose whatever license you want" in the FSD. Choosing >> licenses is not freedom, it's power. > Then your power is taken away if you would like to improve a work > covered by the GPL. Now you're talking about freedom again. Your freedom to improve the work exists. Your freedom to distribute the improvement is respected by the GPL, but not by the combination of the licenses you accepted. Power to distribute the improved work in ways that don't respect the recipient's 4 freedoms is not granted by the GPL. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Jul 22, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> What if you found that offensive and denigrating? > Whether I find it offensive or denigrating does not matter. It doesn't matter if people call *you* by an offensive, demeaning name?!? You just don't mind? >> What if you kid's colleagues at school started calling him by a >> demeaning name? > I would encourage my kid to be strong minded with courage to > confront all of the people, a name or nickname has never been a bad > thing, So you'd encourage your kid to stand up for himself, and confront those who offend him? > I tell the kids should not do it, but if they do to fight back and > call the other guy names as well. What does the guy feel. It is ok > for him to call my kid names but not the other way around. I don't > think so. *nod* > It is different because we are talking about an operating system > that would have been nothing had Linus Torvalds not build that > kernel back in 1991. Except that GNU was already used and Hurd was under development. And where wouuld Linux be in 1992, 1994, 1997, etc, if GNU hadn't been there? > Yes without the GNU tools in place, the kernel would have been > nothing as well, but that should not be the issue. I can give you > many examples of one thing needing another so that they could > mutually exist. Exactly. But if they relied on (*) each other, how can it be right ot name it after only one of them? (*) needing is too strong, each could have eventually find other parties to live with or grown into it. >> Just because they invented the name? > That does not give them any rights whatsover, but if the name > becomes famous they can patent it or copyright it. Heh. Another victim of the confusing "intellectual property" term :-) It's not possible to patent or to copyright a short name. That kind of power is reserved for trademarks, a completely different and unrelated set of regulations and laws. > That way the name is used properly and the way they wanted it to be > used. Trademark law is not about making sure a name is used properly, it's about making sure it is not used improperly, which is not quite the same. E.g., you can't demand one to use your trademark on a product you'd like one to, but in certain cases you can demand one to stop using it on a product you don't approve of. > Whether that is right or wrong? That is another call! Indeed. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Les Mikesell wrote: Alexandre Oliva wrote: In accepting it's terms you give up your freedom to distribute any part of the work under different terms, including any of your own that you might want to add. Since you never had any such freedom under copyright law, you aren't giving anything up. You don't have just have 'permission' to redistribute under GPL terms, you have a mandate not to distribute any part of the whole under any other terms. It's not unilateral - you must give up your freedom. I don't believe that to actually be the case. You've repeatedly insisted that the GPL replaces other license's terms, but I believe that you are mistaken. If you take Project X, distributed under the GPL, and implement feature A under a BSD license, when you distribute your improved version, the GPL protects the users by guaranteeing them all of the rights covered by the GPL. That is, you may not impose additional restrictions on their use or redistribution of your improved version of Project X. This is what Alexandre is referring to as "power"; if you placed additional restrictions on your users, you would be exerting a kind of power granted by copyright law and restricting their freedom. However, the GPL does not replace the terms of your license on your code. If you grant users redistribution rights to the source code for feature A under a BSD license, then those users may use *that source code* in any way that's allowed by your license. They can't use the entire work under your more permissive license, but they can use the source code that *you* wrote, as governed by *your* license. Do you see, now, how the "work as a whole" clause does not replace the terms of your license? The terms of your license will always apply to your code, and no other license can change that under copyright law. The GPL's terms must only be met when distributing the combined work. -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Jul 22, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do not understand here, why some licenses are compatible and which > ones are not. License compatibiliy analysis requires looking into the permissions and conditions established by each license, and looking for conflicts between them. For example, there's this funny Free Software license that is incompatible with itself: it says you can run, study, modify and distribute the software, with or without modifications, but you must distribute your modifications as patches to the pristine version of the file, rather than by distributing the modified version. So, if you take a program A and a program B, and you want to combine them, you can't do that, because both demand to remain as the baseline. A more common case of incompatibility is trying to combine two strong copyleft licenses: each license permits you to distribute the combination only under the license itself, so the only way you can satisfy both is if they're both the same license. Another common case is that of combining non-GPLed software with GPLed software. If the non-GPL license fails to grant some permission that the GPL grants, the combination cannot be distributed, because the GPL requires the combination to be distributed under the terms of the GPL, and doesn't permit distribution if you can't offer or pass on the permissions established in it for each and every part of the whole. > For instance, the Mozilla Public License is incompatible with the > GPL and we can see Mozilla firefox and/or Seamonkey, Thunderbird, > .., etc live nicely in several distributions Licenses apply to copyrightable works such as individual programs. Even a single package might contain code under different licenses, as long as the combination doesn't amount to a copyrightable work in itself. A distribution is a collection of programs. Although such a combination might be copyrightable in itself, and thus amount to a derived work, the GPL makes an explicit exception to combinations that are mere aggregations of packages in the same medium. This is clear permission for GPLed programs to be distributed along with programs under licenses incompatible with the GPL, as long as the programs are not derived works of the GPLed work. Or something like that, IANAL :-) > Also a project that was licensed under the GPL, made changes to > another license the CDDL, and I wondered why, GPL does not allow > those kind of things? If all the copyright holders of a program agree to offer the program under a different license, copyright law says they can do that. It doesn't invalidate licenses granted before, or commitments to grant such licenses, but they can stop offering the program under the old license and start offering it under the new license. Or they may start offering the program under both. Or offer it under some license to some parties, and under another license to other parties. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Jul 22, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First I got a 406 error: (never heard of that one) The server knows the languages in which the article is available and chooses the best for you, according to your language preferences set in your browser and transmitted to the server. In this case, the article was only available in Portuguese, and you didn't have Portuguese configured as an acceptable language, so you got that error. I'm looking for a nicer way to present that error page, but so far I couldn't figure out how to do. Not that I put much time into it, mind you. I don't even know whether this kind of language automated selection is a feature implemented in the Apache http server or in svnwiki :-( > Free software for the end user with four fundamental liberties > (3) if you modify it you have to distribute the modificiations(this is the > part that has hit the distros I talked about) That's not an accurate translation, actually. It says you have the *freedom* to modify the software and distribute modifications. There's no "if/then" there. You don't have an obligation to distribute anything just because you made modifications. Turning this freedom into an obligation, like a handful of OSI-approved licenses do, denies users the freedom to distribute (or not). > "Restrições adicionais" na GPLv3 > Additional restrictions > Something with DRM (Digital Rights Management) > That nothing should deprive the end user to do as he/she pleases with the > products that he/she gets. There is also the famous Tivo mentioned. Yep. Actually, the title of that section is intentionally misleading (catchy, if you will), because people are likely to start reading the article it under the faulty assumption that there are additional restrictions in GPLv3, but the truth is that GPLv3, like earlier releases of the GPL, doesn't have any restrictions; it actually works to *prevent* people from adding restrictions, in ways that GPLv2 may have unintentionally permitted. > Wbat I also have to thank you again if not already done, is for your > patience, for your stregth and your courage to promote the > message(s) that you have conveyed. Thanks for your support. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 06:30:14PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: >> >>> The terms of a license have nothing to do with copyright law. You >>> can agree to anything in a license as long as it isn't actually >>> illegal. An exclusion of copyright rules is simply what you get in >>> return. >> >> With the GNU GPL you don't have to agree with anything. It is an >> unilateral grant of rights as long as you fulfill some obligations when >> you distribute pristine, modified or derived copies. > > If you don't agree to their terms you don't have the freedom to > redistribute. You don't have that freedom because *copyright* restricts you. >> If you don't abide with those obligations, you don't have the permission >> to distribute pristine, modified or derived copies because copyright ^ >> restricts it so. > > Exactly, the license is very restrictive. No, copyright is. >>> Even though they can't exactly force you to apply their terms to >>> other people's work, it is as close as you can get. They withhold >>> your freedom to redistribute until you have agreed to their terms - >>> and in the GPL case these must apply to all other combined work. >> >> Yes they can. Very simply it's the quid-pro-quod required of you in >> order for you to distribute pristine, modified or derived copies. > > Is there even a name for quid-pro-quo when it attempts to involve third > parties in the way the GPL interferes with combining existing works with > different terms? It doesn't attempt, it's the conditions set before you. If you don't like them you get what copyright says, and copyright is *very* restrictive. Of course there's another way: write your own code. Rui -- Umlaut Zebra �ber alles! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 58th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Alexandre Oliva wrote: Licenses often impose terms you must meet as a condition of granting those rights. Those are not (pure) licenses, those are license agreements. Agreements as in contracts. Contracts are meeting of minds and mutual obligations. The GPL is a unilateral grant of rights. Not even close. You must accept it or you are not free to redistribute existing code. In accepting it's terms you give up your freedom to distribute any part of the work under different terms, including any of your own that you might want to add. Permissions you get when you agree to the license terms. Still, where's the "agreement not to do" you allegedly agree to when you accept the license, that you referred to as "prohibitions" and "restrictions" of the GPL? The restrictions are what apply if you don't give up the freedom to choose you own terms for your own additions, or to add third party components already under different terms. 2b says that if you accept the license - and you are not free to redistribute the gpl-only parts if you don't - that the terms must apply to all components. Point is, even if you do apply those terms, they don't take anything away, because they are unilateral permissions. You don't have just have 'permission' to redistribute under GPL terms, you have a mandate not to distribute any part of the whole under any other terms. It's not unilateral - you must give up your freedom. Permissions aren't the point - it is what you agree to do. You agreed to accept the right to do a number of things. But what you must agree to in the GPL covers the work as a whole, not separate parts. It's a bit like Schrödinger's cat. Until you open the box and check (i.e., do something that one of the licenses don't permit), the cat is both dead and alive ( i.e., you are operating under both licenses at the same time). At this point you've agreed to apply GPL terms to the whole work. Nope. You can always claim you merely distributed the work under the other license. Yes, if the whole work is dual-licensed. But if only a component is, you'll have to choose how you want to handle the work as a whole. Even though they can't exactly force you to apply their terms to other people's work, No pure copyright license can. The farthest it can reach is derived works. If other people's work are not derived works, they're necessarily outside the scope of the GPL, unless you choose to make them part of a derived work. If you can decide whether to combine them or not, you're not being forced. And then the code is not free, and you are not free to redistribute. They withhold your freedom to redistribute Your freedom to redistribute is respected. There's no such thing as "freedom to choose whatever license you want" in the FSD. Choosing licenses is not freedom, it's power. Then your power is taken away if you would like to improve a work covered by the GPL. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
> If you can read Portuguese (from your name, perhaps you > can), please > have a look at > http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/pub/gplv3-novidades > and http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/pub/copyleft, it may > help > understand the reasoning behind the conditions of the GPL, > if its > preamble doesn't for you. > Well while I was not trained to read Portuguese anywhere, I could relate and make some connections. First I got a 406 error: (never heard of that one) Not Acceptable An appropriate representation of the requested resource /svnwiki/blogs/lxo/pub/gplv3-novidades could not be found on this server. Available variants: gplv3-novidades.pt.html , type text/html, language pt A idéia da GPL ==> The idea of the GPL Software é livre quando o usuário tem quatro liberdades fundamentais: (0) rodar o programa para qualquer propósito, (1) estudá-lo e adaptá-lo às suas necessidades, (2) redistribuí-lo, da forma como foi recebido e (3) modificá-lo e distribuir as modificações. Free software for the end user with four fundamental liberties (0) program or programs for whatwever purpose (1) User can adapt to his/her necessities (2) It is redistributable in the same form as recieved (3) if you modify it you have to distribute the modificiations(this is the part that has hit the distros I talked about) "Restrições adicionais" na GPLv3 Additional restrictions Something with DRM (Digital Rights Management) That nothing should deprive the end user to do as he/she pleases with the products that he/she gets. There is also the famous Tivo mentioned. Mais vantagens ==> More advantages Balanço positivo ==> Positive Balance I read it and even though I did not understand it completely, I was impressed and in some ways the license looks good. Not all projects have been released with GPLv3, but more will soon. Wbat I also have to thank you again if not already done, is for your patience, for your stregth and your courage to promote the message(s) that you have conveyed. /** sorry if I double posted, but was knocked out of internet and had to reconnect **/ Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
> I don't understand what you're questioning here. > Could you please > rephrase or elaborate? I do not understand here, why some licenses are compatible and which ones are not. For instance, the Mozilla Public License is incompatible with the GPL and we can see Mozilla firefox and/or Seamonkey, Thunderbird, .., etc live nicely in several distributions http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses and it is a non compatible license with the GPL. Also a project that was licensed under the GPL, made changes to another license the CDDL, and I wondered why, GPL does not allow those kind of things? It happened. What was wrong with the change? I found the answer here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html > > > I am not an enemy of the GPL, I only question why it > tries to > > restrict things that are not licensed within itself? > > If you can read Portuguese (from your name, perhaps you > can), please > have a look at > http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/pub/gplv3-novidades > and http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/pub/copyleft, it may > help > understand the reasoning behind the conditions of the GPL, > if its > preamble doesn't for you. > > > The people should decide in the end what they want to > call it, is that fair? > > That people can and should decide it, sure, by all means. > Whether or > not it's fair, that depends on how they decide. > It's between them and > their conscience. > > -- This last sentence is fair and sincere. Thank you for that. Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
> > Like others have said on this list, they should call > it whatever > > they consider is best. > > Do you think it's just fine if I call you Florisvaldo > Azeitonares? It is fine with me, although I was not baptized or registered under Florisvaldo Azeitonares. But you want to call me that ok. That does not offend me. > What if people started a campaign and got a lot of people > to call you > like that, because "they consider it best"? IF I become famous come out on TV, I could care less. I will be famous I could come out on TV and encourage millions of people to at least dual-boot and enjoy both OS to the full limit of their powers. If it would empower me, sure why not? I would take a shot also at the bad guys, the companies that made it hard to use their programs. > What if you found that offensive and denigrating? Whether I find it offensive or denigrating does not matter. Why? Because many people have found it offensive the push to add the GNU to Linux? Why did they not name it like that in the first place so that all these arguments do not exist? Everything has to be well defined, *like in mathematics*, you are either right or wrong. IN the case of the naming business, I believe everyone should have a say as to what they want to call their OS. > > What if you kid's colleagues at school started calling > him by a > demeaning name? I would encourage my kid to be strong minded with courage to confront all of the people, a name or nickname has never been a bad thing, * society takes offense, but back then all of this is childish nonsense*. One has to be strong to survive and move on, like Darwin, only the strong survive and the weak go down. >Wouldn't you reprimand the colleagues > at school and > teach them that this is not something that good kids should > do, or at > least ask the teacher to do so? I tell the kids should not do it, but if they do to fight back and call the other guy names as well. What does the guy feel. It is ok for him to call my kid names but not the other way around. I don't think so. > > Why do you think this situation is any different? It is different because we are talking about an operating system that would have been nothing had Linus Torvalds not build that kernel back in 1991. Yes without the GNU tools in place, the kernel would have been nothing as well, but that should not be the issue. I can give you many examples of one thing needing another so that they could mutually exist. > Why is > it that the > bullies get away with using a demeaning term to refer to > our kid, and > even find that they have a right to do it? Because the laws and law enforcement do not do their jobs and teach these guys to be respectful. Parents cannot swat their kids, because they could end up in jail. Parents are afraid to correct their kids nowadays and the law protects them very much. The values and mores are going down. >Just because they invented the name? That does not give them any rights whatsover, but if the name becomes famous they can patent it or copyright it. That way the name is used properly and the way they wanted it to be used. Whether that is right or wrong? That is another call! > > -- Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Jul 22, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The code is available for free from some places, is that a > sufficient condition? Not for GPLv2. For GPLv3, it is, but the responsibility of ensuring people who get the binaries can get the sources still lies with the distributor of the binaries. > Why do people have to tarnish products when they are doing good and > those that are not accuse them of violating the GPL? If they didn't mean to do wrong, they fix it and move on (GPLv3's automatic restoration is a great improvement over GPLv2's automatic termination in this regard). If they did mean to do wrong, then they're not doing good. Of course you'll find people who are too trigger-happy and will go for the jugular of people who didn't mean to do wrong. That's unfortunate, but there are such poeple everywhere. In general, a friendly approach to inform the person that they're making a mistake is the best to get problems fixed and to verify that no ill was meant. > In the instance of Zenwalk, they posted it on their sites with the > corresponding sources, for Mepis, you can get the sources provided > that you pay and they will be sent to whoever asks for them. Sounds like both are in compliance with GPLv2 at least in this regard. >> > The restrictions or the viral part of the GPL is what bites many >> > people and what turns them against it :( > I do not know enough about it, I just quote what others say. When you do that, you're helping them spread it. Please challenge it, help us expose the lie and the manipulation underway. > All I question is why some programs yes and others no, while both > are free and open source. I don't understand what you're questioning here. Could you please rephrase or elaborate? > I am not an enemy of the GPL, I only question why it tries to > restrict things that are not licensed within itself? If you can read Portuguese (from your name, perhaps you can), please have a look at http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/pub/gplv3-novidades and http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/pub/copyleft, it may help understand the reasoning behind the conditions of the GPL, if its preamble doesn't for you. > It is/was an excellent license, but there are some things that it > prohibits Nope. Copyright law prohibits. The GPL prohibits nothing. It doesn't permit everything, though. Whatever it doesn't permit that copyright prohibits, in the absence of some other license you might have, remains prohibited. > *I do not know which ones*, that forces authors of software to use > other licenses in which their work is more protected. What do you mean by "protected"? > For the others, the users that demand the source, it is available in > the own binary that they download, the instructions are provided as > to how the binary is generated and how it is built and how it works. This all sounds good, I don't see any conflict with the GPL (or any other Free Software license, for that matter) in this description. But it's not the whole story. You have to look at the licenses of all pieces of software you've used and see how they play out together. If there are conflicts, you might be in infringement. Even if you are, if you're well-meaning, and if the copyright holders of the software you've derived from are well-meaning, some arrangement can generally be achieved, but you might have to get in touch with them. > I only question if it is not a GPL offense? Distributing sources along with the binaries are not a GPL offense, no. Whether they're packaged in a single file or not is irrelevant. > Thank you Alexandre for your kindness and taking the time to explain > the GPL and other things. You're welcome. One is glad to be of service. > I know that the vast majority of users do not appreciate the agenda > that you push, but it is something that you have to push. Stress on "have to" :-) > and some quotes from comments section in Distrowatch.com weekly > Take comment 37 > I'm not an expert at all, just an end-user, and like it when > something "just works", as I find in Linux. Sadly for this gnewbie, Linux doesn't just work. It needs userland to work, and that userland has GNU at its foundation. > The people should decide in the end what they want to call it, is that fair? That people can and should decide it, sure, by all means. Whether or not it's fair, that depends on how they decide. It's between them and their conscience. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Jul 22, 2008, Antonio Olivares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Like others have said on this list, they should call it whatever > they consider is best. Do you think it's just fine if I call you Florisvaldo Azeitonares? What if people started a campaign and got a lot of people to call you like that, because "they consider it best"? What if you found that offensive and denigrating? What if you kid's colleagues at school started calling him by a demeaning name? Wouldn't you reprimand the colleagues at school and teach them that this is not something that good kids should do, or at least ask the teacher to do so? Why do you think this situation is any different? Why is it that the bullies get away with using a demeaning term to refer to our kid, and even find that they have a right to do it? Just because they invented the name? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Jul 22, 2008, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Licenses often impose terms you must meet as a condition of granting > those rights. Those are not (pure) licenses, those are license agreements. Agreements as in contracts. Contracts are meeting of minds and mutual obligations. The GPL is a unilateral grant of rights. >> I honestly don't see any "agreement not to do". I see permissions. > Permissions you get when you agree to the license terms. Still, where's the "agreement not to do" you allegedly agree to when you accept the license, that you referred to as "prohibitions" and "restrictions" of the GPL? > 2b says that if you accept the license - and you are not free to > redistribute the gpl-only parts if you don't - that the terms must > apply to all components. Point is, even if you do apply those terms, they don't take anything away, because they are unilateral permissions. > Permissions aren't the point - it is what you agree to do. You agreed to accept the right to do a number of things. >> It's a bit like Schrödinger's cat. Until you open the box and check >> (i.e., do something that one of the licenses don't permit), the cat is >> both dead and alive ( i.e., you are operating under both licenses at >> the same time). > At this point you've agreed to apply GPL terms to the whole work. Nope. You can always claim you merely distributed the work under the other license. That the copyright holder of the work chooses to grant both licenses to the recipients is of no concern to you. Unless you distribute in a way that doesn't comply with one of the licenses. Only in this case can someone else conclude that that was not a license you were operating under. (because otherwise it would have been copyright infringement). > Even though they can't exactly force you to apply their terms to other > people's work, No pure copyright license can. The farthest it can reach is derived works. If other people's work are not derived works, they're necessarily outside the scope of the GPL, unless you choose to make them part of a derived work. If you can decide whether to combine them or not, you're not being forced. > They withhold your freedom to redistribute Your freedom to redistribute is respected. There's no such thing as "freedom to choose whatever license you want" in the FSD. Choosing licenses is not freedom, it's power. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: The terms of a license have nothing to do with copyright law. You can agree to anything in a license as long as it isn't actually illegal. An exclusion of copyright rules is simply what you get in return. With the GNU GPL you don't have to agree with anything. It is an unilateral grant of rights as long as you fulfill some obligations when you distribute pristine, modified or derived copies. If you don't agree to their terms you don't have the freedom to redistribute. If you don't abide with those obligations, you don't have the permission to distribute pristine, modified or derived copies because copyright restricts it so. Exactly, the license is very restrictive. Even though they can't exactly force you to apply their terms to other people's work, it is as close as you can get. They withhold your freedom to redistribute until you have agreed to their terms - and in the GPL case these must apply to all other combined work. Yes they can. Very simply it's the quid-pro-quod required of you in order for you to distribute pristine, modified or derived copies. Is there even a name for quid-pro-quo when it attempts to involve third parties in the way the GPL interferes with combining existing works with different terms? -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 05:42:58PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > The terms of a license have nothing to do with copyright law. You can > agree to anything in a license as long as it isn't actually illegal. An > exclusion of copyright rules is simply what you get in return. With the GNU GPL you don't have to agree with anything. It is an unilateral grant of rights as long as you fulfill some obligations when you distribute pristine, modified or derived copies. If you don't abide with those obligations, you don't have the permission to distribute pristine, modified or derived copies because copyright restricts it so. > Even though they can't exactly force you to apply their terms to other > people's work, it is as close as you can get. They withhold your > freedom to redistribute until you have agreed to their terms - and in > the GPL case these must apply to all other combined work. Yes they can. Very simply it's the quid-pro-quod required of you in order for you to distribute pristine, modified or derived copies. Best, Rui -- Today is Pungenday, the 57th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? -- fedora-list mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Alexandre Oliva wrote: Yes, so if you want to distribute a copy under the GPL, you must agree to its terms, which then cover the entire work. But that does not take away any other rights you might have as to specific parts. Rights aren't the issue. Of course they are. A license is a grant of rights, nothing else. Licenses often impose terms you must meet as a condition of granting those rights. In the GPL case, the only way you can meet those conditions is to apply the GPL terms on all parts of the work on all subsequent distributions. I don't see how you can agree to the GPL terms for a copy first, then distribute a copy of some dual or other licensed part of it in a way you just agreed not to do. I honestly don't see any "agreement not to do". I see permissions. Permissions you get when you agree to the license terms. Otherwise the restrictions of copyright apply. The closest to that, in GPLv2, are sections 4 and 5. The statement "These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License", in the case of dual licensing, or of a component under a more permissive license, is simply not true in these cases. If you don't accept the GPL terms you would have any permissions granted by sub-components. If you do accept the GPL, it demands its own terms be applied to all components. Except that you agreed not to in that 2b clause. Err, no. 2b is just a condition to one of the permissions. You're not even bound by 2b; you could instead use the permissions encoded in 1, 2a, 2c, 3, or any other permissions you have that are not subject to this condition you object to. 2b is not a prohibition, just a specification of one of the possible variants of the permission granted in 2. 2b says that if you accept the license - and you are not free to redistribute the gpl-only parts if you don't - that the terms must apply to all components. but I don't see how the agreement to apply the GPL restrictions You're still getting confused because you're thinking in terms of restrictions. No, I'm not confused. You can't accept the GPL on a sub-set of a work. You can ignore the GPL and use other terms available for a subset, but if you agree to the GPL, you've agreed to apply it to the whole. There aren't any. Think "permission to go that far", in the absence of which you couldn't go anywhere. Permissions aren't the point - it is what you agree to do. The restriction on not going any farther is not something you get from the GPL, so by agreeing with it you don't agree with any such restrictions. The restrictions are encoded in copyright law. If you accept the permissions granted through the license, they won't take away any other permissions that lifted restrictions from law. The terms of a license have nothing to do with copyright law. You can agree to anything in a license as long as it isn't actually illegal. An exclusion of copyright rules is simply what you get in return. The point of that work-as-a-whole clause is to get you to agree to apply restrictions to other people's work Rather to grant the same permissions over any work derived from the work provided under the GPL, to ensure that the whole remains free. You don't have to believe me, that's spelled out in the preamble of the license. It doesn't matter if you believe the misleading preamble or not. It is the fine print of 2b that demands that all combined parts of the work-as-a-whole have the GPL terms applied, or you don't have the freedom to redistribute any that don't have separate licenses. When not combined into that single work, if they're not derived works of GPLed works on their own, their copyright holders can apply whatever terms they like to it. The GPL can't and doesn't change that. But then you can't distribute the strictly-GPL part of that work because you didn't agree to the terms of the license. The condition for distribution of modified works only extends only to works derived from the GPLed work. The condition makes it impossible to combine third party code that can't be covered by the GPL. If the combined work is derived from a GPLed work, then its authors have granted you permission to distribute the combined work under the GPL. You also need permission from copyright holders of any other works you have used. If all of them permit distribution under the GPL (say, because they granted you a license that is more permissive than the GPL), then you have permission to distribute the whole under the GPL. Yes, if it is all-GPL, then no new problem happens with additional GPL distribution of the whole work. If you have permission from all copyright holders to distribute the combined work under another license, you can do that too. Even if the licenses are incompatible, you can extend the permissions granted by the copyright holders to all recipients of the program. You don't have to choose one and use it. Even if you modify the
