--- Dan Kuykendall <address@hidden> schrieb: > 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.
I disagree. We are all burdened with the GPL. It is based on copyright,
and is designed around statically linked c programs. Times have
changed, and it is only slowly changing. This burden he took apon
himself when he chose to register a GPL project.
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.
Why would he revese his decision here if it was right?
Who is talking about malicious here?
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.
Well it just does not work that way, sorry.
Just dont mix them, dont confuse people, dont do the relicensing in
secret.
Maybe you are one that doesnt like
anything to be under the LGPL.
Dont get personal here. ;) I am not that closed minded. It sounds like
you need the Ransom model.
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.
He is the project leader. He needs to take responsibility for his
actions. I can argue about intent here, I just see that it is an action
that will have to be reversed.
Its also not like he is taking code and
relicensing it under some proprietary license.
But trying to make it available to non-free code is the issue here. I
think that he was trying to make some way to hook up jpgraph and his
reporting tool to gforge. There is no problem with doing that, but it
should not be in the public cvs. It cannot be under the GPL. He can do
whatever he wants to do at home.
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.
noone is doing that. I have alot of respect for him.
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",
What do you mean? We live here in the internet. We write mails to
concerned parties. There is freedom of information.
I bet you if he had tried to do the same on the savannah project cvs
that someone would have said something, real quick. It was just a
matter of time before this got public, and we can be happy that no
permanent damage was done.
This is not some coorporation with the same type of power structures.
Everyone who receives a copy of the sourcecode is entitled to use it,
and demand that the GPL is upheld. You can not just ignore them.
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?
I am saying that is is a GPLed project. Dont add LGPLEd modules to it,
becuase the license is GPL, and the LGPL gets converted when you add
them in. I say, Read the license and stick to it.
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.
I am talking about the GPled Gforge project. The LGPL has its place, it
has it purpose, the decision is not up to you or me for the gforge.
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.
not at all.
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
i dont see that at all.
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 you cannot accept the GPL, then what rules can you accept?
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?
I would say that is a derived work. If you want to relicense, start a
new project.
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.
I am not calling anyone here evil. I am just raising my concerns.
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