Re: [GNU-linux-libre] license of 'yggdrasil' software

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Mar 15, 2023, bill-auger <bill-auger@peers.community> wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 00:39:13 -0300 Alexandre wrote:
>> opinion on the matter that was not backed by this kind of legal counsel
>> wouldn't move us any further on the matter, would it?

> youre right - it would help, only if the advice was indeed
> well-informed - surely, people (myself included) assume that the
> FSF is well-informed WRT the GPL, and the implications of
> dismantling sections of it

Maybe in general terms, but the required opinion here is about specific
cases, that add facts that may carry their own legal implications that
laypeople are not qualified to assess, and even legal scholars would
face effort and difficulties navigating legal uncertainties over
unsettled matters, differences between jurisdictions and whatnot.

> i would hope that authors who choose to modify the GPL, would consult
> with the FSF before doing so

I wouldn't take that for granted, and I have no clue whether this was
the case in either of the specific situations.


> thanks for your thoughtful answers Alexandre - i am patient - i
> mostly just wanted to start a discussion - and youre right, i
> probably chose the wrong week - i was hoping that someone on the
> FSD team would know something about 'yggdrasil', so that i could
> join the friday meeting on IRC and provoke movement on the FSD
> entry

Thanks again for your care and dedication.

> the FSF maintains both the FSD and FSDG, and the FSF defines what
> qualifies as a "free software license"

I'm pretty sure at least some of the responsibility over these documents
fall on the GNU Project rather than the FSF, but I'm not acquainted with
the precise details of their maintainership arrangements.  I point this
out because people often misunderstand the relationship between GNU and
the FSF, and imagine GNU as part of the FSF rather than as an
independent project very strongly supported by the FSF.


> On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 00:39:13 -0300 Alexandre wrote:
>> > that is as i assumed - but if a distributor chooses to drop the
>> > extra permissions or restrictions per GPLv3 section 7, shouldnt
>> > that entail to literally remove the extra terms from the license
>> > file?
>> 
>> That's not necessarily the case.

> ok so in your opinion, distributors could advertise that very
> un-gpl-like license as "the GPL"; because the option still
> remains to remove the extra terms

Not only that: they may claim to be actually redistributing the program
under the terms of the GPL, without modification, as permitted, IIUC, by
the program's licenses.  This is my theory and guess as to the reasoning
behind those pieces of information published by redistributors, but it's
not informed by them nor by any legal opinion.

> that is reasonable, but there must be a limit - to contrast,
> imagine that the extra terms added restrictions (per section 7,
> say: non-commercial only) and also cancelled section 7 - surely,
> that license could not be presented as "the GPL", because the
> option would not exist to restore the original GPL terms

If the modified license did not permit the distribution under the GPL,
(and no alternate license was available that did, and the program
remained under copyright) then yes, one could not distribute (or claim
to be distributing) the program under the GPL.

> On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 00:39:13 -0300 Alexandre wrote:

>> Our movement has been through some particularly challenging times, and I
>> hope we can keep on counting on your support, tolerance and patience
>> with these difficulties a while longer.

> spoken like a true politician :)

:-D if only :-) I'm too honest and transparent to make a true
politician.  Perhaps others in the spectrum can relate.

A true politician wouldn't have made mistakes I can only see I made in
hindsight, and others I probably can't even see or understand myself.  A
true politician might understand why cancellation mobs set out to
destroy ideas that would be beneficial to themselves, just because the
ideas are strongly (or, in some cases, even vaguely) connected with
their target.  Me, I struggle to figure out the forces and interests
that paint the targets for cancellation mobs to serve those interests.

A true politician might understand how it can be that some organizations
publicly aligned with the main cause of a cancelled man got hit so hard,
while others managed to get away mostly unscathed, or even to get ahead,
without having become targets themselves.  Me, I struggle to make sense
of it.

A true politician might have such reflexes as that of distancing from a
cancellation target, and that of refraining from disputing the lies that
push a mob forward, reflexes that kick in regardless of whatever morals,
ethics and justice demand.  Me, I can't help being driven by my
conscience, and I struggle to imagine how someone could possibly ever
expect that reinforcing a cancellation supported by lies could possibly
serve a cause that's effectively inseparable from the target.

But I suppose this is all OT here.  A true politician probably would
refrain from even posting this, for reasons I can't foresee.


> - ok, ill bite - how long should a reasonable person wait? - another 5
> years? - that is already how long the FSDG process has been stalled

Just waiting is really not ideal indeed.

I mean, adding pressure on the FSF doesn't help solve the problem, but
maybe resources and efforts that would otherwise be idle could be
directed to solving the problem, rather than just waiting.

I'm not even talking of each one's looking into the matter and deciding
for oneself, though as proponents of autonomy, that should always be a
fallback last-resort possibility.  But maybe picturing the FSF as yet
another volunteer in the movement (taking its self-imposed legal mandate
to do so along the same lines as equivalent to the self-determination of
most of our human movement supporters) and helping it carry out the jobs
we expect of it would be a more helpful way to frame it?

I don't know a solution and I haven't talked to the FSF about it, but
perhaps there are ways to offer help to the FSF on this matter, help
that would enable the situation to be resolved.  Thinking a little
outside the box, maybe crowdfunding to commission an attorney to look
into the issue and provide the FSF with the needed legal opinion?
Encouraging lawyers knowledgeable in the field to volunteer their help
to the FSF?  Asking the FSF what it needs and how we could help it solve
this problem?  I suspect such approaches might be more fruitful than
calling it out.

> that would be a reasonable statement, except that the position
> _was_ occupied during the first two years since the FSDG process
> has been stalled - i started stating and re-stating the problems
> which need attention, while the position was occupied

I see.  That changes some past facts, suggesting there might have been
ways to avoid the present situation (though I'm not aware of the facts
at the time).  But that didn't happen, and given that, this information
doesn't seem to help us find a solution for the present situation, does
it?

I mean, I don't wish to invalidate, dismiss or grow your frustration.
It is understandable.  My focus is not on finding out or exposing
whoever was behind it and could possibly be held accountable for it.
That doesn't seem very useful to me, given how much everything has
changed.  I'd much rather focus on finding steps that could be taken now
towards solving the problem.

Thanks for listening,

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker                https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist                       GNU Toolchain Engineer
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice
but very few check the facts.  Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>