Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] SMGL as GNU-certified Free(R)(TM) Distro?
  • Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 23:28:34 -0600

On Nov 04, Seth Alan Woolley [seth AT positivism.org] wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 07:10:22PM -0600, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> > Even more relevant to this conversation though is the fact that QPL 1 has
> > functionally the *same patch terms* as DJB or UW, yet it is on the FSF
> > "Free-but-not-GPL" list. So using their list you'd get to support
> > patch-only QPL 1 code, but not patch-only UW or DJB code.
>
> They aren't essentially the same patch terms. The QPL allows you to
> distribute modified binaries not in patch form while DJB doesn't even
> allow you to publish modified binaries, period. So I'm not sure what
> you're getting at. Any patches we applied to QPL1 stuff would be
> perfectly fine (since they are separate), and we could even distribute
> modified binaries. Not so with DJB.

I forgot the QPL allowed modified binaries, just not modified sources
(except as patches). While that's a meaningful distinction I don't find it
a particularly significant one, especially for a source-based distribution.

> > I didn't see a response to this, and I think the definition of "support"
> > is
> > pretty critical to what you're proposing.
>
> I mean support as in bugzilla and bugs dealing not with ease of use when
> one is unable to comprehend the documentation, but that if there's a
> problem with an interaction between their system and our underlying
> system or a bug that needs to be fixed that requires a simple patch or
> some communication with upstream for proper configuration/distribution.
> I also mean the use of our website domain to distribute the z-rejected
> grimoire.

Thanks for the clarification. I can't say I agree with the suggestion, but
it's clear what we're talking about now.

> ethics != religion. Why dismiss an ethical discussion that has impact
> upon all our lives as a religious discussion? Religious discussions
> deal with the unfalsifiable and unscientific. Most ethical discussions,
> particularly those in a non-religious context that deals with actual
> ramifications of actions, can be dealt with on game theoretic terms
> coherently in a modern sociobiological framework without any appeal to
> religious authority, which you seem to dislike.

"Religion" when used in this type of context usually is taken to mean that
the topic at hand has been debated to death other places, and most of what
can profitably be said has been said. This rarely says anything about the
actual merit or matter of the point(s) being raised. In other words, I'm
not going to argue license morality here because I have nothing to add to
that topic that hasn't already been said elsewhere. We can repeat the same
old arguments here for a few weeks or we can just say we know the arguments
and have reached our conclusions and this is where we each stand.

> > In any case, given the lack of support from TLs this proposal appears to
> > be
> > getting I'd probably suggest we just drop it for now and get back to
> > trying
> > to get a website running again and a 1.0 out. I'm not trying to belittle
> > something you obviously think is important
>
> You just did. The TLs didn't weigh in unsupport for it yet, and how do
> you expect them to respond so quickly?

Eric responded in some depth at <Pine.LNX.4.63.0511031317310.11807>.
Andrew and David haven't responded to the ML, but they've both indicated a
lack of support in IRC. I thought Arwed had responded as well but looking
back I think I was thinking of Karsten's comments WRT P4, which Arwed
somewhat replied to.

> > but for my part I think I need to focus on other stuff right now.
>
> That's fine with me, I just think publicly dismissing (2) without a
> public reason is not productive to a public discussion.

I just don't think we need to have that conversation from first principles.
We've all been in the field long enough to not be neophytes to the
licensing question, it should be enough to clarify terms and do the
sociological equivalent of protocol negiotiation.

Attachment: pgpLUjVbOyLgz.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page