Conversation
Notices
-
iTWire - GPL expert @bkuhn gives Red Hat the all-clear http://ping.fm/cK3im
-
As follow up on my interview w/ iTWire:Posted details of my !GPL compliance analysis of !RedHat's !Linux distribution in #RHEL: ur1.ca/3gxju
-
@fontana, Um, uh, b/c I hit the wrong key in less when I was looking at kernel.spec. I'm updating the blog post now.
-
@bkuhn interesting article. I'd have mentioned that people have been distributing Linux tarballs before and after git, so no issue
-
@bkuhn I'm surprised you said GPL exists to promote collaboration. I thought it was about defending users' freedoms.
-
@bkuhn indeed, neither collaboration nor cooperation appear even once in its preamble, as desirable as they might be
-
@bkuhn IMHO, freedom to cooperate is a welcome consequence of the 4 fredoms the GPL defends, but I wouldn't say it's raison d'etre
-
@lxoliva,I probably exaggerated there. It doesn't exist purely to promote collaboration,but that allowing that to happen is part of freedom.
-
@bkuhn I'm also disappointed you didn't cover the reasons why you believe Red Hat's agreement is GPL compliant WRT freedoms 2 and 3
-
@bkuhn FWIW, I totally agree with the rationaled regarding freedom 1, but freedom 0 is also uncertain under the agreement
-
@lxoliva, yeah, not central but as !GNU Manifesto says: "[I]mportant thing is that everyone…has…freedom to cooperate w/ others in using it".
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
@bkuhn can you fix that? it's a dangerous quote from a FS activist, for it seems to justify the GPL on Open Source grounds
-
@lxoliva,does !RedHat even care if !GPL'd parts of #RHEL are redistrubuted to 3rd party? Seems they only worry if 3rd parties want support.
Kete Foy likes this. -
@bkuhn like, I see little difference between interrupting svc contract without refund or charging a penalty established in an NDA...
-
@bkuhn for exercising the agreement-curtailed GPL-granted permission of (re)distributing the software
-
@bkuhn I don't know, but AFAIK it's not permitted by the contract. does it matter if this provision hasn't been enforced? I think not
-
@lxoliva, I added "(in part)" there to clarify a bit. Anyway, IMO Freedom 3 is really about collaborating (freedom to help your community).
-
@bkuhn thanks, and agreed. but I'd say it's to permit collaboration, as opposed to e.g. to demand collaboration
-
@bkuhn ... latter being a way to promote collaboration that fits the OSD, with OSI-accepted licenses, though freedoms 1&3 are missing
-
@bkuhn (I'm speaking of the *obligation* to distribute modifications if you adapt or improve the software, present in e.g. the RPL)
-
@lxoliva,IMO when you put those two in same category, it's slippery slope which might cause problems in charging any amount for distribution
-
@bkuhn charging for distribution places no restriction on future behavior of the recipient
-
@bkuhn of course if you don't get the software, you can't distribute it, but it's not because of any restriction you had to accept
-
@lxoliva,IMO we have a moral obligation to share useful changes w/ community. I agree:shouldn't be *required* (I said "promote",not require)
-
@bkuhn but demanding others to surrender their essential freedoms is in direct contradiction of the spirit (and preamble) of the GPL
-
@fontana there isn't, indeed. it's just a guiding principle behind the OSD, perhaps appearing in the commented version
-
@bkuhn I must confess I haven't looked at the contract for quite a while, but this assumption is very often held to be true
-
@bkuhn exactly. I'm just trying to avoid the risk that “promote” becomes the end goal, which might in turn lead to “require”
-
@lxoliva, key question is: does someone *demand* (i.e, require) user give up freedom, or does activity just yield an unfortunate consequence
-
@bkuhn how so? forming a consortium to buy a copy and share among members sounds quite advantageous
Ricardo Dias Marques likes this. -
@bkuhn another unfortunate consequence: “if you distribute the software, I'll sue/kill/burn/... you”. how's that not a restriction?
-
@bkuhn FWIW, that was a change for the worse from RHAS2.1, http://ur1.ca/3e8y6 that explicitly deferred to packages' licenses
-
@bkuhn and cooperation behind freedoms 2&3, and source of free software movement, reaction against "A cooperating community was forbidden."
-
@bkuhn ... that is how I interpret story retold eg in http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/stallman.html ... do I misunderstand?
Jesús E. Franco Martínez likes this. -
@lxoliva, I think it depends. Some consequences are restrictions, but not all restrictions are consequences. This can be subtle.
-
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the