Re: License question: mod_throttle

[Jeff Bachtel <jeff@cepheid.org>]

On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 01:37:23AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > > I asked the author and he helpfully pointed out that the next release
> > > > of mod_throttle will have the same or a stricter version of the
> > > > license here:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.snert.com/Software/mod_watch/
> > > >
> > > > Which is rather unattractive.
> > > 
> > > So let me get this straight: To distribute a package or even mirror the 
> > > source code, you have to get a "prior written permission in hardcopy 
> > > (letter or fax) from the author". If you do it commercially, you also 
> > > have to pay a fee to the author.
> > 
> > That is incorrect. You are permitted to mirror the original source
> > distribution (a distfile) without any written permission, per Section 3.
> > 
> > Yes, a binary package would require permission.
> 
> Sure Sounds non-free.

Yes, it is non-free. You'll note I was replying to a particular
misconception about the level of non-freeness.

> > > That sounds like some really, really stupid license. Does the author 
> > > really want anyone to *use* this module? Have you talked to him about 
> > > the numerous problems of this license?
> > 
> > Is learning how to read a LICENSE file really so difficult? 
> 
> The license has been read.  We understand it.  The software is not
> freely useable by all parties.

The person I replied to didn't, in fact, understand the license.
Again, stating the obvious, it is indeed not freely useable by all
parties.

> > As for pulling the port, I don't understand the logic behind that at
> > all. We have perfectly functioning flags to indicate that binary
> > packages should not be included on the CDs or ftp sites. What,
> > exactly, is the big deal?
> 
> The flags are about to be deleted or at least changed.  The existance
> of these flags is extremely dangerous to the future existance of our
> project.
> 
> > I dislike the idea that OpenBSD is alienating itself still further
> > from web application hosters, and that is the end result of making
> > stuff like bandwidth quotas, Expat, Apache upgrades, etc. difficult.
> 
> Oh give it a break.  Go and buy some software if you want non-free
> software; in the meantime, our group here concentrates on only free
> software.  If you want slaves (ie. our developers) to work on non-free
> stuff, send them some money.  Lacking money, we'll go with things which
> allow us to place them on CDs.  Which means they MUST BE FREE.

Uh, I do buy software. In fact, I recently bought a $12k Helix server
license, and a $10k Reliaty Backup license pack. That doesn't change
the fact that I need mod_throttle to keep users from filling a T1 with
their websites, or pdflib for a grant management system, or UW's
imapd.

I, myself, occasionally work to make non-free software work on OpenBSD,
because I understand I need the software more than I need the moral
superiority. 

But, you say it isn't about any sort of moral superiority at all. You
say that the PERMIT flags endanger the project as a whole (although
how PERMIT=no endangers anyone is beyond explanation).

So, to help insure the survival of the OpenBSD project, may I
recommend removing the following ports, or at least marking them broken
until their license has been 100% determined:

arc bzip freeze lha macutil nulib rar unarj unrar luna sattrack sunclock xearth xephem xphoon bladeenc faad flite gogo lame mp3encode mpg123 nomadio rsynth shorten timidity xmms bytebench netperf xengine spice bg5pdf hc lunar bpl+ kermit lrzsz mgetty+sendfax qpage zmtx-zmrx btoa ish libdvdcss mimepp p5-Convert-UU trans postgresql jad jdk/1.2-blackdown jdk/1.2 jdk/1.3-linux jdk/1.4-linux axe jove textedit uemacs wordperfect xemacs20 xemacs21 adom agm angband connect4 frotz moria uqmcontent wmtimebomb xbat xbattle xchomp xdeblock xinvaders xminehunter xminesweep xmris xripple xscrabble xteddy xzip blender cadubi compface giftrans jpeg2ps libdivxdecore mpeg_encode mtv povray win32-codecs xanim xv canna funetfonts jikes klone libgcj c-client cucipop faces imap-uw majordomo mixmaster pine poppassd sylpheed-claws sylpheed xfaces gnuplot graphviz maple-share maple wingz imm rat rtptools speak_freely wb astrolog calentool dnetc jive mmv mshell plan tkman archie axyftp dss edonkey fi!
 rewalk ftpcopy iperf ldistfp ngrep p5-Net-ICQ2000 sniffit tcpshow tin trn palmos-sdk a2ps acrofonts acroread afm detex foiltex freetype afpl mpage pdflib pkfonts pscyr ADMfzap ADMsmb ADMsnmp antisniff cfs cops crack gnupg its4 lxnb nfsshell p5-Crypt-OpenSSL-RSA p5-Crypt-OpenSSL-Random p5-GPG parse pgp pgp5 py-Rijndael radiusniff rdp sentinel socks5 stel uvscan uvscan_dat ast-ksh LPRng contool idled libretto-config sleuthkit upsd TclXML agrep glimpse html latex2html lgrind pilot_makedoc rman spiff mindterm opera amiwm dclock mosfet-liquid mplayer-fontmaker mplayer msttcorefonts mxconns qt sliderule xaniroc xfishtank xmascot xsnow 

For what it's worth, the PERMIT lines for LPRng are bogus, the
software is distributed under both Artistic and GPL.

This focus on being able to include all ports software as a package on
the CD-ROM is rather odd and, I believe, deterimental. It is, however, 
y'alls desire and decision, so best of luck.

-- 
Jeff Bachtel  (root@ISC,TAMU)    http://www.cepheid.org/~jeff
				 [finger jeff@cepheid.org for PGP key]