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

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Mar 14, 2023, bill-auger <bill-auger@peers.community> wrote:

> probably would not have raised this question, if the FSD entry
> for 'yggdrasil' was not still pending approval after two years,

I see.  Yeah, it would be good to hear a formal position from the FSF.
But this is probably the busiest week of the year for FSF staff, because
of LibrePlanet this coming weekend, so it's really poor timing to try to
get their attention onto other matters.

Now, in order for the FSF to take and announce such a formal position, I
suspect it may not be just a matter of writing something up and
publishing.  IIUC, it would require an attorney's opinion, and IIRC the
position at the FSF that used to do this job was vacated in the first
year of the pandemic, and last I heard the search for someone to fill
those shoes was still underway (though my knowledge as a close outsider
may be outdated).  I'm sure it is frustrating to all parties involved
that this is taking so long, but some more patience will be needed: an
opinion on the matter that was not backed by this kind of legal counsel
wouldn't move us any further on the matter, would it?

> with no discussion evident - so some discussion is in order -
> why has it not been accepted?

Besides the difficulties above, I'd dare guess that maybe it's a case in
which it's not even clear why or whether there's a problem to be solved,
or why a flag was raised to begin with.  I base that suggestion on my
own puzzling at the issue when I first read your first email in this
thread a few days ago.  But then, years ago, I served as a volunteer in
FSF's licensing advice team, so I'm well-versed on free software
licensing matters and FSF's opinions, and it was often the case that
issues that people found confusing were transparent to me.  Maybe this
is one of those cases?

Or maybe it's a case of the FSF being super careful about unsettled law,
more so because there's (ongoing?) litigation surrouding a related
matter? (I vaguely recall reading news about a lawsuit about a license
that added restrictions to the GPL, but the details escape me)

> the FSD and FSDG should never be in conflict

I'm not sure what you mean here.  There are cases in which a piece of
software may qualify as Free Software without meeting the requirements
of the FSDG, and those are intended to be so.  Is this the sort of
conflict you meant?  Or something else?

> 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?

That's not necessarily the case.  That removal would in theory take away
from downstream recipients certain possibilities that the permissions
granted, but for the case of redistribution, only the upstream licensors
would be able to enforce the license, and it is not likely that they
would set out to enforce the narrower terms just because some
redistributor chose to drop them.  It's not even obvious that they would
win such a lawsuit, since they have licensed the additional permissions
to the public at large, and anyone could defend by claiming to have used
the upstream version instead, or relied on those permissions.

It would be different if a distributor were also a contributor, having a
copyright interest on the version it distributes under the narrower
terms, that does not apply to the upstream version.  Here, the change of
licensing terms would be relevant in that this distributor could be able
to enforce the narrower terms, but ISTM that failing to modify the
licensing terms to remove the additional permissions would indeed extend
those permissions to downstream recipients.

It might be confusing, but neither of these cases seems wrong.  Claiming
to distribute something under say the LGPL or the GPL is not wrong, even
if the program is effectively available under dual or multiple licenses,
and additional permissions, as defined by GPLv3, are not very much (if
at all) unlike dual licensing between the original GPLv3 and GPLv3 +
additional permissions.  Given the considerations about enforcement
above, stating only GPLv3 is not wrong, even if incomplete, any more
than stating it's GPLv3 when the terms allow distribution under later
versions of the GPL.  GPLv3+ would encompass that information, but that
additional permissions (to distribute under later versions) is
important and valuable but not critical.

> unless i believed that the FSF would confirm the
> interpretations of volunteers, when those projects will
> inevitably challenge the interpretations

*nod*, yeah, it makes sense to wait for an official position.


> could easily avoid it with a few public words

The concern you raise is legitimate and valid, but you appear to
underestimate the difficulty of performing the legal analyses required
to back these few words.  Until then, the recommendation to refrain from
distributing the package identified as a potential problem seems as
sound as it can get.  Otherwise, redistributing under the GPL packages
received under the GPL, in compliance with its terms, can probably be
counted on in general.


> if i did not enjoy working on parabola so much, if i were doing
> it only "for the cause" (the FSF's cause)

I wouldn't put it that way.  It's our movement, our cause.  The FSF is
an important part of the movement, but I don't see that it "owns" the
cause.  When we volunteer our efforts to the movement, even when it's
some activity the FSF organizes, we do (or IMHO should do) so for our
own collective sake.

Still, I can relate with your dissatisfaction, and share in the
lamenting that this has been so.  I appreciate your sustained efforts
and dedication to the cause, and thank you for them.  I also appreciate
the FSF's, and thank it for them.

Our movement has been through some particularly challenging times, and I
hope we can keep on counting on your support, tolerance and patience
with these difficulties a while longer.

Restating demands that still can't be met due to circumstances that are
outside the control of the demanded party, or adding to the pressure
about them, unfortunately neither fills the position nor qualifies other
staff to issue the legal opinion that would back the demanded statement.
Even after the position is filled, there will surely be quite a backlog
to go through, so please bear with them.

Thank you very much,

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker                https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist                       GNU Toolchain Engineer
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice
but very few check the facts.  Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>