Re: License notices (important!)

[Peter Simons]

Tom Howard writes:

 > The users and contributors [...] are called stake
 > holders. While there is no monitory commitment from them,
 > they still have an interest in what happens to the
 > archive and as such *must* be consulted.

I am torn on how to respond to this. I realize that you will
not like my thoughts about this topic, so I am reluctant to
say it. On the other hand, it is what I think, so not saying
it won't help matters either.

Let's try to forget the recent discussion for a second; I
think we should look at the facts.

All contents on the GNU Autoconf Macro Archive is free
software. This means that the archive has the _right_ to
modify these macros and to distribute the modified versions
as long as the licensing conditions are met.

In other words: I, as the archive's principal maintainer, DO
NOT NEED anyone's permission to modify the contents of the
archive. I can do that because the copyright owners have
granted me (and everybody else) that right when they
released their work under a free license.

Therefore, the idea that anyone "must" be consulted is flat
out wrong.

Let's look at it from the other side. I, as the principal
maintainer of the archive, have started the project; have
built the entire infrastructure; have collected the
contents; have categorized it; have edited it for bug-fixes
and consistency; and I have maintained and updated it.

As a result, I _own_ this distribution. I own the copyright.
I do not own the copyright of all macros the archive
contains, but I do own the archive.

This means that the rights the "stake holders" have, are
governed by the license under which I choose to distribute
the archive. That happens to be the GNU General Public
License Version 2. Let's look at a particularly interesting
part of that license:

  BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS
  NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY
  APPLICABLE LAW. [THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS] PROVIDE THE
  PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER
  EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
  IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
  PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND
  PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. [...]

In other words: You have absolutely NOTHING to expect from
the me, or from the archive.

The only right that anyone has, is to modify and to
redistribute my work under the terms of _my_ license, or to
modify and to redistribute any of the contents under its
respective own license.

These are the facts.


 > If you don't want stake holders there is a very easy way
 > to get rid of them, then no-one will ask you to explain
 > yourself.

I recognize that many of the subscribers here have
contributed contents to the archive. I understand that you
have an emotional investment in the way the archive is run
because you have an emotional investment in the macros that
you contributed.

Because of that, I have been going out of my way to handle
everything correctly. I have always tried to reach the
original author before modifying a macro. I have documented
every little step I made in CVS or on this mailing list so
that everybody can see how I handle the contents.
Furthermore, I _have_ consulted the subscribers of this
mailing list before I made any of the changes I did.

However, in the end _I_ make the decision.

If you don't agree with what I want to do, then either you
have to sue me, or you will have to live with it. You may
feel that this is unfair, but the opposite is true: It is
very unfair to deny me the rights that you have granted
everybody else when it comes to using your macros.

I respect everybody's opinions, and I _do_ want to hear
them. I do accept ideas that haven't been my own. Everybody
who says the opposite is LYING. I do not, however, let other
people take over control over my project.

So anyone who wants me to change an aspect of the system I
have built, will have to ask. Not demand, _ask_. Because you
have absolutely no right to demand anything.

If you can't accept that, then we will not get along.

There is living proof of people who _do_ get along with me,
and usually it are people who try leave the impression that
they respect the work I do.

I have done _lots_ of improvements, and those improvements
are -- if you look closely -- exactly the improvements I
have been asked for. I have implemented them the way I
wanted to and it worked. Please try to _see_ that.

If you can't see that, if you can't find any good in the
archive I have built, then switch projects. Because I won't
spend my time listening to being criticized unfairly for
something I do voluntarily in my spare time. I simply won't.
Please respect that.

Peter