Re: [Savannah-hackers] Re: [Gforge-devel] gforge

[James Michael DuPont]

 --- Dan Kuykendall <address@hidden> schrieb: > I just want to jump
in an defend Tim on this a bit. I have seen this 
> many times in the Free Software world, where some people will jump
> into 
> full attack mode WAY to quickly about license issues.

I am just informing him about the facts, not attacking, not trying to
take away his fun or profit. 

My issue, as I pointed out in the very beginning is that I would like a
clear statement on this form of loose linking from the FSF, due to my
work on the gcc introspector.

> We should always assume that these licensing issues are an oversight
> or 
> misunderstanding. 

After I wrote to tim, explaining my consern, telling him about possible
problems, the very next thing he did in cvs, is turned around and
commited changes to try and allow lgpl linkage. I can see no room for
misunderstanding at all here. It is very clear what path he has
committed himself and the project to, and now it is time for him, with
a better unstanding of the law, to reverse those steps.

>We should always start by contacting the author and
> seeing what it is that we can do to help resolve the issue, in as 
> friendly a manner as possible. I have seen this with companies that
> sell versions of phpGroupWare. 
Selling is fine. Consultancy is fine. But trying to paint GPL with LGPL
paint is just wrong.

>Some of my team has jumped down their
> throats 
> and this is simply the wrong way to handle these situations. It only 
> makes us look like extremists when there is no reason to be.

I dont see any case of that here, everyone is very adult about this.

> 
> In Tims case I would assume, based on what I know of him, that he is 
> working on gForge for the pure enjoyment of it. He would also work to
> stay in license complaince, but if we start bashing him and taking
> away 
> the fun of such a project then it could diminish the great work he is
> doing. So even if he doesnt want to spend the time to cut and paste
> the 
> license text into each file, then one of us should volunteer to do it
> for him.

that is not the issue at all. It is about the implicit relicensing of
the code, the creation of derived works from GPLd code, that is the
issue here. 

> In fact I will put myself up for the task, even tho I am
> pretty 
> busy with everything else Im doing. I think gForge, and Tims work is
> at 
> least worth such a small contribution to making things easier for
> him.
> 
> So lets remember that we are all working on the same team. We can
> same 
> our venom on the Microsofts of the world.

I have been invited to this team to try and help out. I noticed
problems and raised the issues. 
Instead of having them fixed, I am told that we can talk about this in
court. 


Let us agree to just stick the to rules of engagement : 
1. Use the GPL
2. Read the GPL
3. Stick to it.

Dont try and wiggle and squirm your way out of it!

No clandestine relicensing without consulting anyone, 
introduction of code or modules or dependancies of any 
kind that are not gpl compatible.

I will be sure to kick up a fuss. 

There is no more funny stuff on this project as long as I am here, and
I am not going away.

If that takes away your fun, then I don't understand why you are
working on a GPLed project to begin with.I find that the GPL protects
the people from that type of nonsense, and gives them a contract that
governs the most basic rules:

Accept them or go start writing your own code on a different project
without reference or usage of the GPLed code and data structures.
Without the variable in memory created by GPLed modules, without the
data in a database created by a GPLed application.

mike

=====
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Bis zu 100 MB Speicher bei http://premiummail.yahoo.de