Re: [gNewSense-users] Possible problem with closed bug 123

[Markus Laire]

Paul O'Malley wrote:
> hi Sam, 
>
> With reference to:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=424957
>
> Please read the last part by Colin Watson, I agree with him. We now have 
> several ways to read it as Free.

I only see one message from "Colin Watson", the one dated "Wed, 4 Dec 
2002 06:43:08 -0600", and it doesn't speak about "Sun RPC"-issue at all, 
only about "GNU Free Documentation License" which isn't the issue with 
bug 123.

(Unfortunately that Debian bug initially spoke about two completely 
different issues, "Sun RPC" and "GNU Free Documentation License". If you 
read it through, you'll see that GFDL-issue was later dropped from that 
bug.)

I hope you didn't get mixed up with these two issues.

> What Sun's aim was in this matter seems to have been was that a person 
> would not release work downstream and claim it was Sun's, or derived 
> from Sun.
>
> My paraphrasing of what Sun is saying goes as follows - "you may use our 
> work, BUT you _must_ call it your work and cite us as source". That is 
> standard copyright attribution. It is a real pity that the words that 
> Sun used are convoluted enough to cause confusion for some people.
> In saying this IANAL, however, I have been using English every day of my 
> life since I started talking well over forty years ago.
> { ;-) Some would say I was rambling but that is another matter. }

I don't see how "Sun RPC" license could ever be interpreted in that way.

> The fact is that if you really feel that you was some kind of definitive 
>  answer you need to ask the right question* of Sun. Neither Brian nor 
> for that matter myself are unhappy with the interpretation. We have 
> discussed this in one of our many phone calls.

I considered contacting Sun, but I didn't know what to ask exactly.

> The question as far as we are both concerned is answered, questioning 
> the answer is not a bad thing. However questioning the answer without 
> sufficient argument is not going to get anyone to rethink a position.
>
> gNewSense has as a project since Brian and I met up to first discuss it 
> on ICT Expo in the RDS in Dublin Friday 4th May 2006 (nearly two years 
> ago now), made huge strides, this should not be a sticking point.

> A correctly formulated question to be asked of Sun would be:
> Providing that people give suitable attribution and include your 
> licence, do you prohibit the use of your Sun RPC code complete or in 
> part in other peoples works?

I don't think that is enough. That doesn't handle the issue of 
"developed by the user" restriction on distribution.

If I'd know what to ask from Sun, I'd contact them.

> My personal answer:
> Does their licence prohibit such use, not that I can see.
>
> I do this by writing out the four freedoms and read the licence to see 
> if it offends any of them.

"Freedom 2: The freedom to copy the program so you can help your 
neighbor." is offended because license doesn't seem to give that freedom 
to everyone, only to those who have taken part in developing the 
product/program.

> We are not Debian and use the GDFL which Debian would not, however we do 
> lock out that which is referred to as the advertising clause.

GDFL isn't the issue here.

--
Markus Laire