Re: Re: Fw: [Xaraya_curiosa] FW: Re: Proprietary Modules and GPL API (from postnuke devel list)

"Gregory Remington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:mailman.1047270603.15793.xaraya_curiosa-n5IRV0TL0hwRxVAL8JNkP+OyGI2DFzLe@public.gmane.org
>
> As I said, I jumped the gun when I saw.
> http://www.xaraya.com/newsgroups/article.php?id=76&group=xaraya.curiosa
>
> I believe it is good to get an opinion from the FSF regarding these
> issues as we are dealing with software here licensed under the FSF/GNU.

It certainly would have been a good idea, had there actually been an
"issue."  However, as has been repeatedly stated during the course of the
day, this is a "non-issue."  You went to the FSF with the opinion of a
person not associated with or working for Xaraya.  I understand that you
confused the OP with Paul Rosania.  However, when you had your mistake
pointed out to you, the prudent thing to do would have been to cease with
posting information regarding to Xaraya and its use (or non-use, as the case
certainly is) of a license that is anything other than the GNU GPL.  To
continue now, when it has been asserted time and again that Xaraya's
dedication to the GNU GPL is not changing, is pointless and casts
dispersions that are not warranted.

>
> My motives are to educate developers about licensing issues regarding
> the GPL since there still are so many unresolved issues and debates.
> My motives are also out of commercial interests. If we are to build a
> commercial market and legal foundation on the GPL then the FSF not the
> DDF would seem to be the legal authority here. Am I wrong?

As the DDF has made no official statements in regards to this discussion,
how is this even relevant?  The FSF is nothing more than the parent
corporation of the GNU, exactly as the DDF is the parent corporation of
Xaraya.  The FSF has no legal authority over Xaraya.  The DDF, however,
does.

That the FSF had a hand in composing the GNU GPL license does not give them
any particular insight into how it will be enforced in a court of law or in
any legal setting.  They have no particular control over the perceptions of
copyright attorneys or of judges, and their opinions in regards to just such
an eventuality are of no more bearing than the opinion of any other layman.
They may have written it, but they have no control over the legal
implications of it now.  All they can tell you is what they intended certain
provisions to mean; they cannot speak to what a judge will perceive them to
have meant.  That they have presented to the world a license with so many
ambiguities and that opens itself to so many differences in interpretation
should exhibit just how subjective the field of copyright law is.

>
> I will do my best to clear up any misconceptions now and in the
> future. None of us can claim to be pure as the driven snow. I have
> always wondered why there needs to be a DDF when there is an FSF. Can
> you please explain this to us?

Since you say "us," I am assuming that this post will be forwarded to people
other than yourself.  So be it.

I ask you in return, why should there not be a DDF?  Why should the FSF be
the only Open Source advocacy corporation in existence?

The DDF exists for the exact reasons put forth in its mission statement: to
promote the growth and use of the Open Source software solution and to
present it as a viable and perhaps superior choice to proprietary software.

To say that the DDF is unnecessary due to the existence of the FSF is to
stand against the main tenet of Open Source.  Competition is a Good Thing
and should be encouraged, not stifled and killed when someone else's
interests seem threatened.  The DDF will work within and without the Open
Source community to give the projects that come under its leadership and
protection the tools and knowledge they need to succeed.

There are no ulterior motives here.  There is no "master plan" to hijack
copyrights and redistribute code under differing licenses.  There is nothing
more than a desire to see the Open Source market open up in ways and in
places that in the past have seemed completely out of reach.  Ensuring the
protection of the copyrights of those deeply involved in the Open Source
arena is a large part of this equation, and to claim that the DDF entity, or
any of its founders and/or members, is only wanting non-exclusive use of the
copyrights so that they may abused is absurd.  The DDF asks for
non-exclusive use of copyrights so that they may be more effectively
enforced, should they be violated by an outside party.

If you, as a developer, choose to make an application to the DDF for
consideration as a project, that would be fine.  If you would prefer to go
to the FSF with your project, this would also be fine.

But in the end, isn't it nicer when you have the choice?

bri