Re: License furor

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 10:19:26AM -0400, mark kandianis wrote:
> At 09:16 PM 5/24/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> >On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 07:52:59PM -0500, Dr. Rich Murphey wrote:
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
> >Behalf
> >> > Of Vincent Stemen
> >> > Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 6:02 PM
> >> > To: [email protected]
> >> > Subject: Re: [forum] License furor
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 03:48:13PM -0400, William M. Quarles wrote:
> >> > > Someone respond to this man!  He's making some good discussion here.
> >> > >
> >> > > I don't understand what the problem is with the new license either.  
> >In
> >> > > comparing it to the modified BSD license, which supposedly is GPL
> >> > > compatible, the XFree86 1.1 License looks almost exactly the same.  
> >Why
> >> > > is it specifically that the XFree86 1.1 License is GPL incompatible,
> >> > > whereas the BSD license is not?
> >> >
> >> > Read the thread where we discussed this about a month ago near the end
> >> > of April.  The exact problem was discussed in detail.  It looks very
> >> > similar at first glance, but the following statement in the new
> >> > XFree86 license makes it very different.
> >> >
> >> > "in the same form and location as other such third-party
> >> > acknowledgments"
> >> >
> >> > I know of no other open source license that contains this condition.
> >> > As I said before, that is a legal booby trap where no distributor of
> >> > open source software can guarantee they are not violating the license.
> >>
> >> Let me get this straight.  You're actually worried about legal 
> >threats?  Has
> >> such a threat ever actually occurred or is this some new kind of threat 
> >that
> >> you've invented?
> >
> >To try not to be too redundant, I will, again, refer you to my
> >postings to this list in the later part of April which also provides a
> >scenario.  I hope I made my concerns clear.
> >
> >
> >> It's ludicrous to worry about legal threats from XFree86.  Vendors are
> >> caught violating the GPL on a regular basis and face few legal threats 
> >other
> >> than perhaps a cease and desist.   They might eventually abide by a cease
> >> and desist if someone is willing to spend enough money and effort to
> >> inconvenience them enough to make it worthwhile, but they never face any
> >> financial demands let alone pay damages.
> >
> >Never?  Come on! Are you even aware of the Caldera/SCO legal attack on
> >Linux vendors?  Caldera is a Linux distributer who we all thought
> >supported the open source movement.  Once they acquired SCO and
> >thought they had a legal weapon, they sued IBM for $3 billion dollars!
> >Then they turn around and sue Auto Zone, and DaimlerChrysler and are
> >threatening everybody who distributes Linux.  If the new XFree86
> >license infiltrated the whole industry and everybody ignored it, can
> >you imagine what would happen if a dirty competitor was able to
> >acquire The XFree86 Project, Inc. and most vendors were not in
> >compliance with the license?
> >
> >Not only that, you way under estimate the gravity of a cease and
> >desist order in a case like this.  X is a major component of all open
> >operating systems and major commercial Unix's as well.  It is not like
> >having to stop distribution of some small application.  If a company
> >such as Microsoft acquired such a critical component, they could
> >devastate the Unix and open source world.  It could potentially run
> >the Linux and BSD vendors completely out of business.
> >
> >So you are saying to just ignore the license change and don't worry
> >about legal threats?  That is what is ludicrous!  If there is no
> >intention of ever enforcing this new license, then why change it in
> >the first place?  X has been extremely successful for a very long
> >time under the original license.  From what I have seen, most of the
> >open source distributors agree with me.
> >
> >
> >> Hell, XFree86 doesn't ask them to release their proprietary code.  It 
> >just
> >> asks for acknowledgement *if and only if* they were going to acknowledge
> >> others.
> >
> >Wrong.  The FreeBSD and similar licenses ask for acknowledgement.  The
> >new XFree86-1.1 licenses asks for acknowledgement in the "same place
> >and form" as other acknowledgements.  I don't think vendors can
> >guarantee compliance to this for all applications they distribute.
> >
> >
> >> Do you think any vendor is worried about having to actually release their
> >> proprietary code after violating the GPL?
> >
> >So what are you saying?  That vendors should feel free to violate the
> >licenses and not worry about it because the guys writing the free
> >software wont have the money to enforce it?   If they are including GPL
> >code in proprietory products in violation of the license, I think they
> >darned well should be worried about it.
> 
> vincent you're arguing both sides of the fence on this one.  one for pdl 
> (public domain, no
> licenses, no rules, just put it out and let anyone do what they want) and 
> on the other that
> open source can only be gpl otherwise it's proprietary code.
> 
> hello!  this is sheer insanity.  where'd you come up with this medieval 
> view of the world?

I guess that would be sheer insanity if that were what I was arguing.
I never said either one of those things.  I don't know what I said to
lead you to that interpretation.  Perhaps you should reference my
exact words.

My entire argument all along has been that the "same place and form"
stipulation in the XFree86-1.1 license is likely to be very difficult
if not impossible for vendors to fully comply with.  That statement is
what makes the new license very different from all other open source
licenses I know of and a legal trap that is likely come back and bite
hard in the future it we go down that road.

I made comments to answer why the XFree86-1.1 license is incompatible
with the GPL because that question keeps being asked, but I never said
that open source can only be GPL otherwise it's proprietary code, or
even that I favored the GPL.

I do favor licenses that give everybody the freedom to do pretty much
as they please with the software, but it does not have to be with no
rules.  I have no problem with attribution requirements in the form of
the FreeBSD or MIT style licenses.  Personally, I believe in
attributing authors whether it is required or not.  I think these
licenses have served us well for many years and I see no reason not to
continue using them.


> >Yes I do.  Just about every major Linux vendor has rejected it except
> >or a few of the more obscure ones.  Even Debian Linux, which is one
> >of the least commercialized ones publically rejected it.  What makes
> >you think they are not "worked" about it?  It seems to me they have
> >made it very clear that they are.
> 
> i think calling debian the least commercialized linux vendor 
> ridiculous.  ever see who are
> their backers?  i went and looked after you said this, and i see sun, ibm, 
> hp.  it's the same guys who head up x.org.
> i think you need sleep man, i hear that a paucity of it  can kill your 
> thinking. so follow my maxim:
> 
> early to bed early to rise
> fish all day  makeup lies.
> 
> you'll thank me in the morning.
> 
> mark.

I did not say they were THE least.  I said one of the least.  I
referred to Debian as less commercial because, TTBOMK, they are one of
the most open source oriented distributions that does not operate like
like some of the public stock Linux vendors that pile in commercial
software, charge high prices, and try to force support contracts down
your throat.  You can also download their entire release for free, not
a stripped down version.  In fact Debian does not even manufacture
their own CD's.  If you compare them to the other main stream
distributions, they are one of the least commercial.  Not that this
technicality has much to do with this discussion, but I stand by what
I said. 


-- 
Vincent Stemen
Avoid the VeriSign/Network Solutions domain registration trap!
Read how Network Solutions (NSI) was involved in stealing our domain name.
http://www.InetAddresses.net