The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Results of "social contract" survey

ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson)  wrote on 17.06.97 in <m0wdyCT-0004nrC@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:

[ about software where you may deliver original source with patched files,  
but not patched source ]

> 1. Maintenance of a piece of free software should not be a monopoly.
>
> One of the key benefits of free software is that if anyone feels that
> it is not being maintained to their satisfaction, and that they can do
> a better job, they can take it over or fork it and release their own
> versions.
>
> Licenses that prevent people other than the copyrightholder from
> distributing modified sources prevent this process, which is normal
> and expected in the free software world.
>
> Furthermore, the copyrightholder may become unavailable for some
> reason, with the result that a piece of free software can become
> unmaintainable because noone can get permission to distribute modified
> source code.

Well, obviously, a license that allows the source to be distributed with  
patch files allows everyone to distribute modified versions - it just  
places restrictions on the format in which those versions can be  
distributed.

It's an inconvenience, nothing more.

> 2. Code-reuse requires the distribution of modified source.
>
> If a program prohibits distribution of modified versions of its source
> code then parts of it cannot be taken and incorporated in free
> software.

That's an oversimplification, of course. I do agree it may become a  
serious hassle, especially if the original source is large.

On the other hand, I do not agree that the ability to borrow code from a  
program is something we should require. Encourage, certainly, but no more.

And of course it is quite possible to have a license that restricts  
modified versions, but still allows code reuse. There are several ways  
this could be done, from restricting code reuse to "small-enough" parts,  
to saying that the result should clearly be labelled as something  
different from the original. It all depends on what the author is actually  
trying to accomplish with the rule in question.

> 3. `Source' files are sometimes installed directly.
>
> Some packages, eg TeX, have files that are distributed with the source
> code and which must be installed on the target system as they are.  If
> we are not allowed to distribute modified versions of these files then
> we are not allowed to distribute a .deb file which contains our
> modification; we would have to patch the file in the postinst.

A hassle, right, but far from impossible.

> 4. Our source format is a technical decision, and should not be
> mandated by a software licence.
>
> The fact that we are going to switch to distributing unmodified
> upstream source with patches is an engineering decision that should be
> up to the project to take.  We should not be forced into this decision
> by the licensing terms of the software we distribute.

It is just as much a technical decision as the type of license in  
question; from what I recall from that discussion, it was mainly motivated  
by the wish for traceability.

How is it that when we wish to get traceability by keeping original  
sources and patches separate, it is a good thing, but if the upstream  
author does the same, it is a bad thing?

There's a strong smell of double standard around.

> If we accept this new laxer definition of freedom now then we may find

Is it really so new?

> that later, if we want to change the source format again, we have
> engineered into our product some software whose licence will prevent
> us from doing so.

That's nothing new. For example, we could not now switch to encrypted  
source packages, with keys available for money, because we would thus  
violate the GPL.

This is not a problem because we do not want to do such a thing, and don't  
expect that to change.

Do we really expect to want a source distribution format where we cannot  
keep original tar[.gz] sources? That seems just as improbable to me as the  
other one.

MfG Kai


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .