license submission: qmail

[John Cowan]

Brian Behlendorf wrote:

> I think this is a flaw in the OSD - what it means is that those authors
> who place their software under [a "patches-only"] license effective make forking
> impossible.  Why?  Because a project aimed at building a derivative work
> may not have a shared code tree, making collaboration impractical enough
> to effectively prevent a fork.


I am not an RCS/CVS expert, but it seems to me that it wouldn't be too
hard to add a mode to download the original source plus forward deltas,
SCCS-style.  This mode would meet the restrictions of the license:
the original source is present, and the patches are merely aggregated
with it, not incorporated into it.  At the receiving end, of course,
they can be integrated.

> but it does not really provide for the same checks on power between
> developers that are really what open source is all about.


How is this so different from the NPL's treatment of Netscape as a
privileged participant?  We didn't say that wasn't Open Source.

 
> By this token, I hereby submit that qmail's license terms, at least as
> defined at http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html, passes this clause, and the
> others in the OSD, based on one theory - that the requirement
> 
>   only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the
>   source code
> 
> is superfluous.


It is superfluous in the sense that distributors already have the
right to distribute patches, as you make clear.

> The other terms of clause #4 are met by DJB's requirements on package
> builders that he states on that same page.


Technically, I suppose they are.  But the restrictions are obnoxious.
You may not distribute binaries based on modified source, even if
you change the name.  You may not distribute source in a different
packaging (like RPM or deb).  You may not distribute binaries if
they are not the latest version, which means you have to kill the
product from all accessible archives when DJB releases a new one.

If I were a distributor, I wouldn't put up with this nonsense,
Open Source or not.

-- 
There is / one art             || John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
no more / no less              || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things             || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness           \\ -- Piet Hein