license submission: qmail

Matthew C. Weigel weigel+ at pitt.edu
Thu Jun 7 21:47:54 UTC 2001


On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote:

> Nope, read more closely at http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html:
> 
>   Exception: You are permitted to distribute a precompiled var-qmail
>   package if [...list of conditions...]
> 
> The OSD doesn't state that there could be no conditions.

That's semantic pussy-footing.  The license must explicitly allow
distribution, not explicitly disallow distribution except when certain
conditions are met.  There is no room in 'grant permission to
distribute' for 'do not grant permission to distribute.'

> I think that page describes sufficiently how to create binaries of
> derivative works; it just doesn't allow source code releases of those
> derivative works, except as pristine source + patches.  Kinda perverse
> that the OSD has this preferential treatment for binaries over source
> releases, IMHO...

Kinda perverse that you so strongly insist on misreading the OSD.  It's
simple; allow distribution of binaries for people who don't want to
hack, and provide something that those who want to hack, can hack. 
While people on Unix systems tend to take compilers for granted, they
are not automatically on every platform.  What would you do if every
open source project that runs on Windows (including gcc) were only
available in source form?

> Like I did a few months ago with the can-copyrights-enforce-standards
> question, I'm exploring the edge cases of the OSD with the intent of
> either finding models that accomplish goals that others not currently
> in the open source community have (to bring them in) or to force us
> to ask ourselves what "Open Source" really means, and whether the OSD
> matches that concept.

It does, as long as you read what it says.  Edge cases are fine; but
these aren't edge cases, these are examples of how intentionally
misreading sections of the OSD lead to different non-open source
licenses.

> I'm not trying to be an ass about this, seriously.  I just see
> licenses like Darren Reed's and DJB's, and see some healthy debate
> outside of this list and OSI as to whether such terms are "Open
> Source" or not, and see the opportunity for clarification.

Re: IPF license.  Darren has made two incompatible statements about his
intents in writing the license, one of which is clearly incompatible
with open source, and one of which is perfectly acceptable.  Drawing
any conclusions about his intent in writing the license, and hence the
footing on which a person might find himself in a legal battle based on
"intent," is not firm.

Re: qmail license.  Where's the 'healthy debate' about whether or not
it is open source?  You're intentionally misreading the OSD to get
discussion going, but I've never seen DJB, nor anyone who uses qmail,
nor anyone who refuses to incorporate qmail into 'free or open source
only' compilations, claim that qmail is open source.
-- 
 Matthew Weigel
 Research Systems Programmer
 weigel+ at pitt.edu




More information about the License-discuss mailing list