| |||||||||||||
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resignsGNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resignsPosted Dec 26, 2012 8:49 UTC (Wed) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)In reply to: GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns by hummassa Parent article: GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns
Oh, I like llvm and clang. And I like the Android runtime. But I am always worried if their non-copyleft status could be a shot in the foot for the Free Software community. Apple, for instance, closed up the Darwin kernel a long time ago. No, the Darwin source for the latest OS X is listed here and includes the kernel (xnu, near the bottom). Apple also has a guide on kernel hacking.
(Log in to post comments)
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 26, 2012 14:10 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
xnu's under a non-free license.
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 26, 2012 14:57 UTC (Wed) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
It's APSL 2.0 and BSD - says so right there and the APSL is in the xnu subdirectory. Both are free software licences according to the FSF.
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 26, 2012 15:29 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
There's this additional clause that's attached to the files:
* You may not use this file except in
Restriction of use. Non-free.
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 27, 2012 5:45 UTC (Thu) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
Are terms which explicitly state uses which are otherwise illegal a practical restriction of use? If I put a "You may not commit murder with the Software" term in a license, would that make the software non-free? The additional terms here state that uses which are already illegal aren't allowed ("unlawful or unlicensed copies" and "violate…terms of an Apple operating system software license agreement"). It reads more like a reminder than anything else. It doesn't preclude one from making an Apple-compatible system with the code (as I read it), just not an *actual* Apple system in such a way that breaks other laws or licenses *already*.
(IANAL)
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Jan 14, 2013 13:19 UTC (Mon) by oak (subscriber, #2786) [Link]
Referring to another license and not even stating the version / date of that license seem like a statement of forbidding everything Apple has every forbidden in their OS licences, or that it might forbid in future licenses. I can only assume that it's that vague on purpose.
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 27, 2012 5:58 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
It is an odd clause certainly, since it doesn't forbid anything that isn't already illegal. There is no restriction here that was not already applicable via the same laws that make the APSL (or GPL) enforceable. I'm not sure why Apple felt the need to include that text, but it is not part of the licence: it seems only to be a legal warning to the end-user. If the "free software" fanatics deem these warnings to be "restrictions of use" that render the software "non-free" then we have a rather large problem. Free software isn't about the right to break existing law.
It's no different from saying you cannot use GPL software to illegally reproduce GFDL documentation. (For example, you cannot combine auto-generated documentation from your GPL program with existing GFDL documentation). It is not a restriction -- it is a legal fact that you cannot do that (at least in countries where the GPL and GFDL are legally valid licenses). And it is possible that users will need to be reminded of that fact. But if I include a warning to that effect in my source files, is that an "additional restriction" that renders my code non-free?
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 27, 2012 11:22 UTC (Thu) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] If I have a license to Work A, and use Work A to copy Work B, then (by default) I am not breaching the license of Work A, only of Work B. The clause appears on cursory examination to be an attempt to make the violation of Work B's license using Work A a violation of Work A's license. Thus yes, it is an additional restriction. ("For any purpose", remember.)
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 27, 2012 11:43 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
But this "clause" is not part of the License for "work A"! The License is a separate text file in the source directory. This "clause" is just a comment embedded directly in the source files. If you use the code to copy work B, you are not breaching the "license" of work A, only "breaching" (whatever that means) this "clause". A more logical view is that this is not a "clause" at all, just a clarification to the user about what is and is not allowed.
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 27, 2012 12:02 UTC (Thu) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
One simple counter-example: down here in Brazil, the clause in Apple's OSX license "only run this in Apple hardware" is null and void (*). what you call the "clarification" is, effectively, here, one extra clause to the license.
(*) our Software Law grants us the right of modifying legally-acquired software in any way we need, if it is with the objective of making it run in our hardware and/or operating system, for our private use. (Law 9609/98, art. 6, IV)
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 27, 2012 18:15 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
> It is an odd clause certainly, since it doesn't forbid anything that isn't already illegal.
Sure it does. The OS X license agreement contains all kinds of requirements that are unenforceable in a range of jurisdictions. It's not merely a reminder of obligations you already have, it's an explicit limitation of the acts you're permitted to perform with the code.
> it is not part of the licence
It's part of the conditions of use of the source code, so it's part of the license you received the code under even if it's not part of the APSL.
> Free software isn't about the right to break existing law.
So it'd be fine for a license to forbid use by dissidents seeking to overthrow a despotic government? Obviously they're breaking the law anyway and so copyright terms are unlikely to be their biggest concern, but it seems like an unfortunate scenario for licenses to get involved with.
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 27, 2012 18:51 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Any additional restrictions are problematic even if you believe they are merely clarifications and innocent. For instance, JSON license (http://www.json.org/license.html) says "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil". That counts as a use restriction and makes this license non-free because "Good" and "Evil" is not defined within the license.
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 27, 2012 19:15 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Does that make it impossible to use JSON to exterminate all humans?
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 27, 2012 19:19 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
Only if you think that it'd be an evil thing to do.
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 28, 2012 2:06 UTC (Fri) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]
> Only if you think that it'd be an evil thing to do.
That seems a little far-fetched, don't you think?
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 28, 2012 23:58 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
How about the killing of a substantial and well-defined subset of humans? Genocidal maniacs tend to see their actions as anything but evil.
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Jan 2, 2013 13:48 UTC (Wed) by rfontana (subscriber, #52677) [Link]
Not necessarily. The license could be interpreted such that the standard for "evil" is not the subjective view of the licensee.
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Jan 2, 2013 16:31 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
I thought the licensor was on record as it being up to the licensee's interpretation?
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Jan 2, 2013 16:36 UTC (Wed) by rfontana (subscriber, #52677) [Link]
I wasn't aware of that. If that is so, I withdraw much of my past objection to this license to the extent the licensor you refer to is the licensor in a particular instance.
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Jan 2, 2013 16:59 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
I have recollections of something like "If IBM thinks it may do evil, IBM would need to negotiate a new license".
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Jan 8, 2013 17:04 UTC (Tue) by mgedmin (subscriber, #34497) [Link]
IIRC he said he gave an explicit right for IBM to use the software for evil, after receiving a request from IBM's laywers.
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 28, 2012 2:41 UTC (Fri) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]
You'd have to ask the licensor(s).
|
|||||||||||||