Re: [GNU-linux-libre] license of 'yggdrasil' software

[bill-auger]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 00:13:56 -0300 Alexandre wrote:
> AFAIK that's never been thought of as being in
> conflict with the FSD or the FSDG.

i do agree, at least for the one i described 'yggdrasil' - i
probably would not have raised this question, if the FSD entry
for 'yggdrasil' was not still pending approval after two years,
with no discussion evident - so some discussion is in order -
why has it not been accepted? - has anyone reviewed it? - if it
was simply over-looked; then i am bringing it into focus now

it is another example of the information on the FSD conflicting
with the judgment of FSDG distros - i would like to see all such
conflicts resolved, once identified - the FSD and FSDG should
never be in conflict - ideally, a formal record would be kept for
all FSD candidates which were rejected, documenting the rationale


On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 00:13:56 -0300 Alexandre wrote:
> ISTM that it follows that Arch
> dropped the additional
> permissions, so the license that remained is indeed the LGPL.

that is as i assumed - but if a distributor chooses to drop the
extra permissions or restrictions per GPLv3 section 7, shouldnt
that entail to literally remove the extra terms from the license
file? - those distros distribute the upstream's custom license
verbatim, yet identify them to users as 'GPL', 'LGPL3', etc

i may be willing to confront the upstreams and package
maintainers on these subtleties, but i am not very enthusiastic
to do so, unless i believed that the FSF would confirm the
interpretations of volunteers, when those projects will
inevitably challenge the interpretations - the FSF, as the
license publisher, has the authority and the credibility to do
so convincingly - i am only an "average-joe-not-a-lawyer"
nickname on github or _whatever_ - no one should take my opinions
as authoritative, or even as reasonably educated opinions


On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 00:13:56 -0300 Alexandre wrote:
> IANAL, and I don't speak for GNU or for the FSF

none of us are lawyers - that should go without saying - most
software authors who choose the GPL or choose to modify it, are
not lawyers either - but the FSF could speak for the FSF - as
the license author; any statement from the FSF is much more
authoritative than anyone else's interpretation

i have asked the FSF about 'nmap' repeatedly, over the course
of two years, since donald asked distros to freeze it, due to
the dubious license - i have yet to receive a single word of
response - that is extremely discouraging

if i did not enjoy working on parabola so much, if i were doing
it only "for the cause" (the FSF's cause), or only for pay or
glory, i probably would have quit three years ago, in disgust of
the FSDG's mismanagement

for the FSF to avoid resolving these doubts publicly, is in
effect, to burden everyone who distributes these alleged 'GPL'
software, and who is not incidentally a lawyer, with the
responsibility of making unqualified legal decisions, at their
own risk - that is a great way to discourage volunteers to the
greater project of software freedom, which is the FSF's primary
business to encourage - the FSF should not put volunteers to it's
own cause in that predicament; and could easily avoid it with a
few public words

i dont think that i am asking for too much; but i have grown
weary of asking repeatedly