IPL as a burden

[kmself at ix.netcom.com]

on Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 06:54:22PM +0100, Manfred Schmid (mschmid at intradat.com) wrote:

> It is indeed interesting that GPL does not address the matter of
> running a GPLed program. 

It does.  Explicitly, in section 0:

    Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
    covered by this License; they are outside its scope.  _The act of
    running the Program is not restricted_, and the output from the
    Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on
    the Program (independent of having been made by running the
    Program).

Emphasis added.

The apparent lapse is of the OSD, not the GPL.  The OSI and FSF are
entirely separate organizations.  The projections of the OSD and the
FSF's definition of "free software" onto the universe of software
projects overlap greatly, but are not identical.

> From a legal standpoint it might be interesting, if the OSD is an
> inegral part of GPL or not. 

The OSD is not an integral part of the GPL, which it greatly post-dates.
See above.

> We do not feel that the license is an obstacle. Free Software mens
> free speach, not free beer (adopted from gnu.org).

If you're going to quote the FSF on the meaning of free software, get
your quotes right.  We're very familiar with the material.
Specifically:

    "Free software" refers to the users' freedom to *run*, copy,
    distribute, study, change, and improve the software.  More
    precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the *users* of
    the software:

    - The Freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)
    - The Fredom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
      needs (freedom1).  Access to the source code is a precondition for
      this.
    - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
      (freedom 2).
    - The freedome to improve the program, and release your improvements
      to the public, so that the whole community benefits.  (freedom 3).
      Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

    A program is free software if users have *all* of these freedoms.  Thus,
    you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without
    modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to
    anyone anywhere.  Being free to do these things means (among other
    things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.

[http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html]  Emphasis added.

Your proposed IPL meets neither the definitions of an OSI-certified
license, nor "free software".  Either change the license such that it
does conform, or stop claiming that it does.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>    http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?       There is no K5 cabal
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/         http://www.kuro5hin.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20010116/c1a00c70/attachment.sig>