Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Seth Alan Woolley <seth AT positivism.org>]

On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:28:34PM -0600, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> 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.

they are particularly significant for any use of sourcemage as a 
metadistribution.

> 
> > > 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.

Good, I think I missed adding a response the first time around.

> 
> > 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.

OK, This is not what I thought you meant by it.  There really isn't 
anything to say in response to that.

> 
> > > 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.

I presume you are talking about (2), and not (1) or the separate 
perforce discussion.

I'd personally love to see some action on perforce and (1).  I'm mostly 
responsible for (1), but other TLs are mostly responsible for any 
migration away from perforce.

> 
> > > 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.

OK.

Seth

-- 
Seth Alan Woolley [seth at positivism.org], SPAM/UCE is unauthorized
Quality Assurance Team Leader & Security Team: Source Mage GNU/linux
Linux so advanced, it may as well be magic http://www.sourcemage.org
Key id FDCEE733 = 5302 B414 64C4 6112 3454  E082 99F0 69DC FDCE E733

Attachment: pgpxsBirLF486.pgp
Description: PGP signature