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

[Sam Geeraerts]

Markus Laire wrote:
> 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.

That's also what I thought.

> (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.

I think a better question would be:
Providing that one gives suitable attribution and includes your license, 
do you probibit the use of your Sun RPC code complete or in part in 
one's own work, so that it could be licensed and distributed to others 
under a different license?

If the answer is yes then the code should be removed because then a work 
that contains the code is restricted to be used only by developers who 
made that work.

If the answer is no then the original Sun code is non-free because it 
cannot be distributed by itself. That doesn't matter for gNewSense 
because it is part of another work. The code in portmap.c would then 
fall under the modified BSD license. I think that a new bug should be 
submitted then for the other code in portmap because they don't have a 
license (except for portmap.8, which is also modified BSD).

> > 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.