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

[Dan Kuykendall]

James Michael DuPont wrote:
> 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.

This is a good goal. But by lumping the gForge issue to your bigger 
concern, you end up burdening Tim with your crusade.

> 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.

Maybe he was trying to figure out how to make it work. Just because he 
disagreed with you, does not make him "wrong" or malicious.

> Selling is fine. Consultancy is fine. But trying to paint GPL with LGPL
> paint is just wrong.

I can agree with this. But I can also see why he is trying to LGPL'ize 
some GPL code in this instance. Maybe you are one that doesnt like 
anything to be under the LGPL. I personally am very glad the LGPL is an 
option and use it for all the libraries I write.

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

Kids have no monopoly on bad behaviour. :-)

> 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. 

Yes, this is a valid issue. I am not saying it is not. But there is a 
difference between someone doing it malisiously and someone doing it 
with pure intentions. Its also not like he is taking code and 
relicensing it under some proprietary license. He is just trying to 
switch it into another GNU license. Im not saying he is right, or that 
its allowed, but lets not call a friend a demon.

> 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. 

Well, from what I have seen you appear to have a very direct and 
potentially offending way of going about "raising the issue", and I 
wouldnt be all that surprised if someone reacted negatively to your method.

> 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!

Are you saying that we cannot use the LGPL? Are you making some new 
policy of the FSF to be GPL only? I will continue to use the LGPL, and 
if thats not on your list and you dont like the rules of engagement, 
then so be 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.

Again, you paint the picture as some evil act. He is just trying to come 
up with a solution to his need. If in the end its not a valid legal 
procedure, then so be it. But again your being very abrasive

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

If you continue to act in this manner you may not leave, but hordes of 
the rest of us might.

> 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:

Following the GPL is not what takes away the fun. Dealing with this kind 
of crap is what does.

> 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.

This is where you start getting in the valid debate. It is something 
that we need to figure out. When does "derived" code become re-written 
code? If 80% of some code has been re-written, is it still covered by 
the original license, or is that considered re-written?
Im not sure of those answers, and I think Tim is not sure of them 
either, and I doubt you know.

Those are questions I am not sure anyone in teh legal community has 
really pinpointed. This does not make Tims actions evil, its just a 
sypmtom of the unknown nature of things.

Dan