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ideally want to stick to OSI-approved licenses, and the translations might be a problem (but they are already getting out of date).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