Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration

[Jeremy Tregunna]

On 12-Oct-05, at 5:47 AM, MJ Ray wrote:

> Jeremy Tregunna,
>
> > Sure, but that doesn't affect the GNUstep distribution in any way 
> > shape
> > or form, which was the whole debate in this thread.
>
> I am a GNUstep committer who uses a GPL'd editor to control
> CVS. How does it not affect GNUstep in any way shape or form
> if you make it more difficult for me to use? I admit my
> contributions are minor, but there would be some effect.

This does not affect you because you are not distributing your editor 
along with it. Secondly, I use Mac OS X to develop most of my code, the 
terms of which it is distributed does not in any way, impact the 
license of which my code is released under (nor does it, or would it 
require that my code be compatible with its licensing terms). You're 
editor is DIFFERENT than GNUstep which if you'll read my comment again, 
will have zero impact on the GNUstep distribution.

As for the implications of using non-GPL compatible software in a GPL 
package; I can create some bindings for let's just say, mercurial for 
emacs, write it in elisp, and release it under the terms of oh I dunno; 
the 4 clause BSD license and not have it impact emacs in any way shape 
or form since I'm not distributing emacs with my package, or my package 
with emacs. You seem to think there is an impact on something when 
there is not. Please remove your head from your anus--don't moan at me 
over this either, I'll explain why you're head is up your ass in the 
immediately following paragraph.

See chapter 6 of the GPL, I'll post it here, for your convenience:

--- Chapter 6 begin ---
  6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
--- Chaper 6 end ---

Note the operative words "the Program", which is clearly defined as:

--- "Program" definition begin ---
The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language.  (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".)
--- "Program" definition end ---

As well as "any work based on the Program", and the clause restricting 
the addition of further restrictions (in this example, the advertising 
clause).

Now then, let's notice that based on the above information, you are 
perfectly able to use non-free software in a GPL project (as a _USER_ 
thereof) so long as you do not redistribute it. I as the original 
author of the ficticious mercurial binding, could distribute it on my 
website, and the GNU project could distribute emacs on theirs, without 
any legal problems. The user may also use my software package with 
emacs without any legal problems. Now the FSF will probably be bound 
and bent on telling you otherwise, but that's not how the GPL v2 is 
worded.

> Excuse me for asking, but who are you?

My name is clearly outlined in the From field of this mail, I suggest 
you have a read at it again.

> > > > [...] God this list is terribly bad about
> > > > this kind of stuff, it's irritating.
> > >
> > > You seem terribly bad about snide comments like this.
> >
> > This list is seriously terrible when it comes to the amount of folks
> > who just bitch and moan.
>
> Possibly, but way off-topic. My comments were specific and
> practical, so I think you levelled your accusation at the wrong
> person. The SVN advocate acknowledged my comments were accurate in
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/discuss-gnustep/2005-10/msg00151.html
> Additionally, the heavy size of SVN clients seems a nuisance too,
> which is only coming clear later in the discussion.

I'm not advocating the use of or migration to SVN; personally I'm not 
in favour of any move, but my opinion doesn't really matter as I have 
only contributed about 400 lines of code to the project, which weren't 
in a suitable manner to be used (merely built ontop of), and I have no 
desire to fix (but that's another story entirely). My sole purpose for 
the post to the list was merely to point out that so long as you aren't 
distributing non-GPL compatible software with the GPL software, there 
is no legal problem for the GNUstep project.

> I think it's quite likely that we will eventually migrate to
> a distributed version control, so moving to SVN seems make-work.

Indeed.

> --
> MJ Ray (slef), Lynn, England, retposxto cxe http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

--
Jeremy Tregunna
jtregunna@blurgle.ca

"If debugging is the process of removing bugs, then programming must be 
the process of putting them in." --Dykstra