gnu-linux-libre
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] fork nmap?


From: Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] fork nmap?
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 01:35:59 +0200

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 17:11:09 -0400
bill-auger <bill-auger@peers.community> wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 14:40:34 +0200 Denis wrote:
> > If it's not already done somewhere else (like in Debian for
> > instance), we probably need to fork nmap in the meantime.  
> 
> as i understand this, a fork would not help - the recent hubbub
> over the new license exposed the fact that the parts of the new
> license, which induced most of the new complaints, were also in
> the previous license, which nmap had been under for over a
> decade - the upstream was forthright about that fact, early on in
> the debate - they were confused why people were complaining so
> fervently; because, the new license did not introduce those
> concerns - i suspect that is why the FSF has not yet rescinded
> the freeze, despite that over six months ago, the nmap upstream
> reinstated the previous license - they may be now, doubting if
> nmap was _ever_ libre - ive seen discussions within other
> distros, which echoed that doubt
What may also happen (potentially in parallel) is discussions behind
closed doors between the FSF and nmap, and in some cases private
discussions can be way more efficient than public discussions for
convincing companies.

We for instance have (for a different topic) the Principles of
Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement which clearly states that
"Confidentiality can increase receptiveness and responsiveness"[1].

And in yet another area, private discussions with a neutral third party
are also used a lot to solve conflicts between individuals[2]. The idea
is for the humans in conflict to understand the point of view of the
other side by discussing privately with a third party (and not directly
with the other side) in order to avoid violent confrontation and instead
take into account the other party needs.

If the delay is because of discussion behind closed doors, all the FSDG
compliant distributions also have some collective power, and so if we
work together with the FSF, we could for instance enable the FSF to
leverage that power in one way or another if it feels that it's
relevant.

For instance we could remove nmap if the FSF asks us to do it or
package really a new version of nmap with a new clarified license really
fast for instance and in either cases couple that with a joint press
release from the FSDG distributions and the FSF and/or the FSDG
distributions, the FSF and nmap.

References:
-----------
[1]https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html
[2]https://cdn.media.ccc.de/events/rc3/webm-sd/rc3-hacc-125-eng-How_to_solve_conflict_in_a_community_of_equals_webm-sd.webm

Denis.

Attachment: pgpmkFnhjiF4j.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]