David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost> writes: > On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 08:06:17AM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: > > I think many people view distributing a binary to run on someone else's > > computer and running a binary on my computer hooked up to their > > computer's kbd/mouse/display as a distinction without a difference. > > And many people do not, I suspect primarily the people who actually do > either of these things and who are therefore concerned about this issue. Agreed; it depends where you are coming from. > > Practically, I'd say someone running a service, making derivative works, > > and withholding source needs advice of counsel anyway, in which case > > they can change the ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES variable. People just using > > NetBSD systems don't have the issue you described. > > So the moment I enable bozohttpd in base, or configure Apache, I need > to talk to counsel, and I shouldn't be expected to be able to do these > things safely otherwise? That's what you're saying, and I think it's > absurd. No, I didn't say that. I said if you are running a business and are creating dervied works of software to which you do not hold copyright, and distributing them, then you need advice, and that paying attention only to what us pkgsrc people say is crazy. Further you really need someone to pay attention and have license issues be part of your written design and business plan, even for cases when you don't think you need a lawyer. If you stick to non-copyleft licenses, this advice conversation is brief. With copyleft licenses, it's longer. > This AGPL affects *installing and running* software, not just > releasing and shipping it. It is fundamentally different from the > basic GPL this way, and it should not be enabled by default. Are you talking about the network-as-distribution clause, or about the patent claues in GPL3? (Both are fair things to discuss, but let's keep them separate.) For the network-as-distribution, installing and running doesn't cause trouble; the trouble comes from offering network access to derived works. I should say that I'm not dead set against changing our (several years standing) rules. But, I think the rules need to come from board@, have a published rationale, and be consistent with the rules for the NetBSD base system. So far no one has pointed to a coherent web page or published paper etc. that explains the problems with these licenses. I'm not saying there are none, but the claims against them seem overbroad and not adequately substantiated.
Attachment:
pgpmz7IB7XpH_.pgp
Description: PGP signature