Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 11:23:38 -0700 From: underway@comcast.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: FreeBSD-users-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Obsolete license terms at the FreeBSD website (Re:[FreeBSD-users-jp 75962]) Message-ID: <41he41od3p.e41@mail.comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <3F4D8B28.737D6B0C@ht.sakura.ne.jp> (IIJIMA Hiromitsu's message of "Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:55:04 %2B0900") References: <002901c36c93$ee58dfa0$020ba8c0@front> <3F4D8B28.737D6B0C@ht.sakura.ne.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
IIJIMA Hiromitsu <delmonta@ht.sakura.ne.jp> writes: > 1. About GNU LGPL: > > GNU Library GPL (LGPL) was renamed to GNU *Lesser* GPL (also abbreviated > as LGPL), with the reason described at > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html. Strictly speaking, it wasn't. From LGPL v.2.1, dated Feb'1999: This is the first released version of the Lesser GPL. The older v.2 license, which describes itself as the "Library General Public License", is still in use and will be for a very long time. The LGPL 2.1 should be added to FreeBSD.org, though. And while the FSF is free to name their licenses as provocatively as they want, others are free to refer to them as they want. I'd like to see Freebsd.org use links with this text (FreeBSD shouldn't associate itself with the term "GNU" any more than necessary). LGPL v.2 -- The FSF's library license, version 2 LGPL v.2.1 -- The FSF's library license, version 2.1 (I might even go so far as to counter-provoke with "... The FSF's library greater public license...". :) <sidenote> > The page above claims that ordinary GPL, not LGPL, should be applied for > certain libraries while some libraries should remain in LGPL. Which doesn't detract from the fact that both versions of the LGPL are explicitly intended for libraries, using the word "library" throughout, except in the name of v.2.1, regardless of RMS's use of the disparaging word to discourag use of the more liberal license. So they are both rightly called a "GNU Library General Public License", regardless of their FSF-given title. Of course, the site maintainers will probably want to use the FSF title on v.2.1 to reduce complaints. Either way, I'd like to see a comment there about the term "lesser". On second thought, having the two titles together is its own comment. I find the term "lesser" offensive (in LGPL context) and think that it should be avoided when practical, as in this case. Consider how the FSF treats links it finds offensive: On gnu.misc.discuss (2002-02-18) some poor guy wanted the FSF to link to his Chinese GPL translation, but his URL had "Linux" in the domain name. From the message RMS> We don't link to translations of the GPL in URLs that say "Linux" RMS> because those URLs imply that the GPL is something about Linux. RMS> We find that claim offensive and we will not accept it. (The guy grovels in his reply to RMS, trying to get his translation used somehow, and he demonstrate's RMS's influence when he finishes: [Good thing I found out about the severity of this early, I was thinking of getting a @linux.org.* vanity e-mail address... now I can avoid another debugging session perhaps somewhere in the future.] </sidenote> > | 3.All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software > I think that the fact that this clause was deleted should be noted as > editors' note, with original text kept original, to show the historical > change. Good idea. Maybe something like this (only slightly facetious): This page links to copies of the licenses which are associated with most parts of FreeBSD. There are other licenses, some with terms which might be considered more restrictive than the listed licenses. Various parts of FreeBSD are copyrighted by various parties. Many parts are copyrighted by multiple parties. Copyright notices are usually incomplete. (FreeBSD archives contain much identifying information, should anyone ever want to investigate ownership.) Those facts mean that users cannot expect to be able to identify every copyright owner or find the owners' explicit offers to license their software. Users can only hope that courts would find implied offers to use the software under the license commonly associated with the portion of FreeBSD in question. There is some legal risk involved in the use of most open-source software, including FreeBSD. Given the unusually generous nature of the most commonly used licenses in FreeBSD, one could guess that the risk is less with FreeBSD than some other operating systems. Much of the software was derived from the BSD which came from UCB (University of California, Berkeley) with the license labeled "The BSD License" below. The notice at ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change implies that the "advertising" clause of that license is no longer in force.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41he41od3p.e41>