[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: No more ports of unfree software



> "If you think you need a license from the copyright holder, you've been
> bamboozled by Microsoft."
> 
> To me, that clearly shows why he doesn't feel the need to distribute
> a license.

Good luck defending this in court, with that retarded statement as all
you have.  This is a joke, and it doesn't take a lawyer to realise it...
 
> What's the worst thing that can happen if software is unlicensed and we
> have the PERMIT lines all set to No?  OpenBSD gets sued for distributing
> a Makefile with some variables set?  I don't see how that is possible.

Me and naddy get our time wasted by building that package every time
we do a build, which we do often.  And no, I will not stop building
those packages who have PERMIT_* to No, because I want to make sure of
the integrity of our ports tree.  In short, if you still don't get it -
your opinion on this really is irrelevant, and you won't change our
minds, especially not on the topic of DJB.  Give up.
 
> What is the purpose of the PERMIT lines?
..
> How is one to judge when to set a No or a Yes?  Do we set "Yes" only if
> the license explicitly allows us to do so, or do set "Yes" only if the
> license doesn't explicitly deny a right?  This is the most confusing
> part for me.

You need to have all rights explicitly granted, period.

> Stuff I really don't know what I should do with:
> 
> archivers/unace:
> 
>         Copyrighted but freely distributable.  That's the whole license!
>         Is this PERMIT_*=Yes or PERMIT_*=No?  By what logic do I
>         determine what to set the values to?

It does not grant the right to modify and then redestribute, for
example.  Therefore, it should not go on FTP and not on CDROM.
It should explicitly give the rights to use & redistribute, with or
without modifications.  If it does not do that, from what I understand a
good lawyer can screw you in court (even though nothing was denied,
that's the way copyright works, rights need to be granted, otherwise
they are denied by default)
 
> archivers/p5-Archive-*:
> 
>         "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>         modify it under the same terms as Perl itself."
>         
>         I marked these with a "# GPL" since the "main" license is GPL and
>         Perl is in the gnu directory in OpenBSD.  Unfortunately, Perl is
>         actually tri-licensed GPL/Artistic/Custom.  So I am thinking
>         about going through all the Perl stuff and marking it with
>         # Perl instead.  But is this even valid?  "This is the same
>         license as Perl" doesn't make any sense.  *Which* license(s) of
>         Perl?  Am I supposed to mass e-mail all these Perl module guys
>         asking for clarification or is this okay?

I think you are getting too much off-topic here, that comment line is
really not all that relevant.  Put "GPL/Artistic" or something

> What I started doing, and would like to continue doing, is go through
> the whole ports tree and make sure the PERMIT lines are correct, and
> put a comment above the PERMIT lines so anyone looking at them can see
> how the values were determined to be what they are set to.

Just make sure you discuss with other people, as 1 person's
interpretation of something is not always what it actually is.  Of
course, if it's ambigous that's bad by itself, but that's another story.

> Once someone gets back to me about how I should go about setting the
> PERMIT lines and what is acceptable and what isn't, then the question
> remains.  What is unfree software?

When to get the distfile, you have to register an account on a website
and agree to a few dozen pages of copyright agreements, and you are not
allowed to do anything with that distfile but use it at your home
computer for example, I think that suggests that this software is a
waste of time.

Check the cvs logs of devel/gtl ... it used to be "free" (GPL), I used
it for a few small projects that I had at the time.  Later they decided
they did not want to allow commercial use w/o "written permission", and
I actually had to scan my student ID at the time and present it to them,
in other to classify as "educational use" and download the new version.
Needless to say, at this point I was getting annoyed and found another
way to do what I needed to do... after a while I realized noone actually
used that port, as I doubt anyone would want to go through the process I
did to get the freakin distfile, and the port was deleted.  In summary,
this is now software that I consider unacceptable for the ports tree --
just an example.

> When you started setting precedents like "no unfree software unless it's
> a special case", that smells like politics to me.  What is meant by
> "import any more..."?  No *new* unfree software in ports, but we can
> keep all the unfree software we have now?  Where's the consistency?

It means we will try to discourage non-free software in favour of free
software in the future.  Interpret it as you wish...

> We also have ports that aren't being upgraded because they're under a
> new license that is less free.  I'd rather have a restricted diamond
> than a free piece of coal.

Then you do not share the OpenBSD goals.  Let me remind you,
http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html
Look at the 2nd point.  The ports tree is part of OpenBSD.  Maybe you
should reconsider why you're here...