[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 09/11/06 10:10:11, Peter Lloyd-Jones wrote:
Some of you have been kind enough to show an interest in the problems that out Model Railway Software is having. For those interested I have inclosed a copy of Bobs last letter. It is interesting as not only is KAN attacking us, he has also stolen (?) our domain name, and almost copied and pasted some of our definitions into his program (omitting only the licencing details).
This software is under the Artistic licence - a licence that is regarded by the Free Software Foundation as:
"too vague; some passages are too clever for their own good, and their meaning is not clear."
"The problems are matters of wording, not substance." http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicenseThis illustrates one of the pitfalls of this lawsuit - be very careful attributing the implications of this case to possible threats to free software. The Artistic Licence (except in the draft v2 form) is *not* a free software licence, it is open source but works licenced under the original licence cannot be said to be free software.
This weakness may undermine the whole case.Anyone new to this case and/or new to the list needs to take heed of these problems. Learn why and how certain licences can make projects open source but not free software - whereas all free software is open source. Read and understand the GPL (use the FAQ) and think about why so many projects have decided to use it - and why some projects have decided to use something else.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/ http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htmlBefore you write any code of your own, before you submit any *patches* of your own, find out what licence is used / to be used. Ensure you understand that licence and precisely what it offers you and the rest of the community.
Remember that, for example, in Debian and Ubuntu, the non-free section is a high-risk area for development and contributions from the community. You need to read the specific licence carefully before working with any non-free code. Don't forget that code in the 'contrib' section of Debian is still not free software because it depends on non-free code, that's why it is in contrib and not main. Such code may be under a licence that allows someone to relicence the code you submit as patches into a proprietary version of the package - even stop producing the community version altogether and start charging exorbitant fees to download or even preview the package that *you* helped fix!
I personally think this battle is really what it is all about, and if the community loose this one, Microsoft and the rest have it on a plate.
That may not be quite how it turns out. The vague wording of the licence at the centre of this case could be very important to the impact of the result.
Matt is claiming that copyright law doesn't apply to his misuse of the JMRI decoder definitions, and that JMRI isn't protected against his infringement by our license: <<http://jmri.sf.net/k/updates.html#2006-09-27>http://jmri.sf.net/k/up
There is a possibility that open source software could be hit hard by this case - the impact on free software is less predictable. What matters is whether the eventual judgement limits itself to the licence in question or whether the judge tries to make some sweeping generalisation that would impact on all sharing of copyrighted work.
In this situation, it is important that everyone who wants to use free software into the future is at least aware of the case and it's issues. It is also important, nay imperative, that anyone even considering writing their own code or submitting even trivial patches to existing projects *must* understand the licence under which that code is released. Whenever you start a new source code file, whenever you make a substantial change to a source file in a patch, make it absolutely clear that your patch is offered under the provisions of either the licence that applies to the rest of the package or a compatible licence. State your copyright, state the licence summary and understand what you are doing under that licence, not just within the codebase.
We're fighting that, of course, along with the his bogus patents, cybersquatting, etc. To all the people who've helped with time, money or moral support, thank you. It's likely to be a long, difficult struggle, but I have no intention of giving up. This is just too important.
(Perl is under a modified Artistic Licence but Perl6 is likely to be under the more rigorous v2 draft that the FSF are prepared to accept as a free software licence.)
-- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgppMNuZgl0rc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html