*URGENT* ftpparse licensing issue

Hi,

I am writing to request that the ftpparse library be *immediately*
relicensed under a GPL compatible license. This is needed because two
Debian packages, prozilla and elinks, both GPL, use ftpparse and
therefore violate the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We either need
this code relicensed or we will have to remove both packages.

Andrew Donnellan
Debian GNU/Linux user and volunteer
--
Heritage Linux Group
http://www.heritagelinux.tk

[SeattleServer.com]

On Saturday 21 May 2005 08:04, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> I am writing to request that the ftpparse library be *immediately*
> relicensed under a GPL compatible license. This is needed because two
> Debian packages, prozilla and elinks, both GPL, use ftpparse and
> therefore violate the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We either need
> this code relicensed or we will have to remove both packages.

Heh,

So, just because Debian has a nazi-like philosophy about licensing, that means
anybody else should care?  I prefer DJB's license over the GPL any day.

Good thing Gentoo doesn't discriminate (SCNR).

Cheers,
--
Casey Allen Shobe | http://casey.shobe.info
cshobe@... | cell 425-443-4653
AIM & Yahoo:  SomeLinuxGuy | ICQ:  1494523
SeattleServer.com, Inc. | http://www.seattleserver.com

[SeattleServer.com]

On Saturday 21 May 2005 09:26, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> It does. It's not Nazi-like, it protects software freedom. I respect
> your opinion, but I prefer the GPL.

It _is_ nazi-like.  Nazi-like in the sense that there is only one right and
true way, and nothing else is allowed.  The GPL isn't the only license out
there, and CERTAINLY is not right for every free software project nor author
(I will never release under the GPL, but I have released under the BSD and
others).

To restrict all software not licensed under exactly one license is dumb, and
you'll find, as many others already have, that authors aren't going to just
go around changing their licenses to suit the current whim of XYZ
distribution.  The license clearly dictates how it appropriate for you to use
and redistribute the software, and those are the terms you have to accept.  
Don't like it, don't use it.

Cheers,
--
Casey Allen Shobe | http://casey.shobe.info
cshobe@... | cell 425-443-4653
AIM & Yahoo:  SomeLinuxGuy | ICQ:  1494523
SeattleServer.com, Inc. | http://www.seattleserver.com

[Sean E. Covel]

Casey,

Actually, the latest versions of Prozilla (ProzGui and Prozilla 2.0)
have dropped the ftpparse code because of the license issue.  Prozilla
1.3 still uses it, but should be dropped in favor of Prozilla 2.0 in the
near future.  There are no plans to replace the ftpparse code in the 1.3
version.  Its considered obsolete at this point.

Sean


Casey Allen Shobe wrote:

> On Saturday 21 May 2005 09:26, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
>
>>It does. It's not Nazi-like, it protects software freedom. I respect
>>your opinion, but I prefer the GPL.
>
>
> It _is_ nazi-like.  Nazi-like in the sense that there is only one right and
> true way, and nothing else is allowed.  The GPL isn't the only license out
> there, and CERTAINLY is not right for every free software project nor author
> (I will never release under the GPL, but I have released under the BSD and
> others).
>
> To restrict all software not licensed under exactly one license is dumb, and
> you'll find, as many others already have, that authors aren't going to just
> go around changing their licenses to suit the current whim of XYZ
> distribution.  The license clearly dictates how it appropriate for you to use
> and redistribute the software, and those are the terms you have to accept.  
> Don't like it, don't use it.
>
> Cheers,

[uwe-7]

On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 06:04:17PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:

> I am writing to request that the ftpparse library be *immediately*
> relicensed under a GPL compatible license. This is needed because two

well, you may request anything...


> Debian packages, prozilla and elinks, both GPL, use ftpparse and
> therefore violate the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We either need
> this code relicensed or we will have to remove both packages.

If that pleases you... but why should anyone care?

besides: you could use the ftpparse rewrite inside the ftpcopy package.

Regards, Uwe

Several points:

1) Casey, I said GPL *compatible* _not_ GPL. This includes BSD, MIT/X,
Public domain, etc.

2) I'll look up the ftpparse rewrite that was suggested. If this is
GPL *compatible*, I'll have the code patched.

3) As for prozilla, the Debian policy says that packages in stable
(currently woody) only get bugfixes and security fixes, not new
versions, so ProZilla 2.0 can't be included. (It's stupid, but we have
to stick to it.)

Andrew

On 5/22/05, uwe@... <uwe@...> wrote:

> On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 06:04:17PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
>
> > I am writing to request that the ftpparse library be *immediately*
> > relicensed under a GPL compatible license. This is needed because two
>
> well, you may request anything...
>
>
> > Debian packages, prozilla and elinks, both GPL, use ftpparse and
> > therefore violate the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We either need
> > this code relicensed or we will have to remove both packages.
>
> If that pleases you... but why should anyone care?
>
> besides: you could use the ftpparse rewrite inside the ftpcopy package.
>
> Regards, Uwe
>

--
Heritage Linux Group
http://www.heritagelinux.tk

[SeattleServer.com]

On Monday 23 May 2005 09:39, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> 1) Casey, I said GPL *compatible* _not_ GPL. This includes BSD, MIT/X,
> Public domain, etc.

So is that why Debian refused to include KDE for all the years that QT was
QPL-only?  In any case, it's still a draconian policy to exclude
non-GPL-compatible free software licenses.

> 2) I'll look up the ftpparse rewrite that was suggested. If this is
> GPL *compatible*, I'll have the code patched.

LOL.

> 3) As for prozilla, the Debian policy says that packages in stable
> (currently woody) only get bugfixes and security fixes, not new
> versions, so ProZilla 2.0 can't be included. (It's stupid, but we have
> to stick to it.)

Who besides Debian users, who have chosen by the act of using Debian to
exclude themselves from the evils of GPL-incompatibility and thus should
understand that they will not be able to use all software and will run into
these problems time and time again, cares?  It's not acceptable to proclaim
to various authors of respected software that their product must be
relicensed, and NOW.  Authors don't often choose licensing options lightly,
and they aren't going to relicense something for whomever has the latest idea
of what the license should be.

Cheers,
--
Casey Allen Shobe | http://casey.shobe.info
cshobe@... | cell 425-443-4653
AIM & Yahoo:  SomeLinuxGuy | ICQ:  1494523
SeattleServer.com, Inc. | http://www.seattleserver.com

[Sean E. Covel]

Andrew,

Casey Allen Shobe wrote:

> On Monday 23 May 2005 09:39, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
>
>>1) Casey, I said GPL *compatible* _not_ GPL. This includes BSD, MIT/X,
>>Public domain, etc.
>
>
> So is that why Debian refused to include KDE for all the years that QT was
> QPL-only?  In any case, it's still a draconian policy to exclude
> non-GPL-compatible free software licenses.
>
>
>>2) I'll look up the ftpparse rewrite that was suggested. If this is
>>GPL *compatible*, I'll have the code patched.
>
>
> LOL.
>
>
>>3) As for prozilla, the Debian policy says that packages in stable
>>(currently woody) only get bugfixes and security fixes, not new
>>versions, so ProZilla 2.0 can't be included. (It's stupid, but we have
>>to stick to it.)
>

You'd better remove Prozilla 1.3 from Debian Woody then.  There are no
plans to spend time on further development of the Prozilla 1.3 tree.
Only security fixes are planned.

We looked at the "ftpparse" license issue (in excruciating detail) a few
months back when there was a serious security bug being taken care of.
The level of effort required to replace ftpparse was too great for the
1.3 tree, and it had already been replaced in the 2.0 tree.

The developer's agree that if the only reason to re-write 1.3 was to
support the Debian license, that it wasn't worth the effort.  You're
welcome to use Prozilla 2.0.

Sean

>
> Who besides Debian users, who have chosen by the act of using Debian to
> exclude themselves from the evils of GPL-incompatibility and thus should
> understand that they will not be able to use all software and will run into
> these problems time and time again, cares?  It's not acceptable to proclaim
> to various authors of respected software that their product must be
> relicensed, and NOW.  Authors don't often choose licensing options lightly,
> and they aren't going to relicense something for whomever has the latest idea
> of what the license should be.
>
> Cheers,

[Russ Allbery]

Casey Allen Shobe <lists@...> writes:

> Who besides Debian users, who have chosen by the act of using Debian to
> exclude themselves from the evils of GPL-incompatibility and thus should
> understand that they will not be able to use all software and will run
> into these problems time and time again, cares?

Debian does not exclude software which is not GPL-compatible.  The
previous poster was mistaken.  Quite a bit of GPL-incompatible software is
in Debian (OpenAFS, for instance).  Debian only excludes software that
does not comply with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which ftpparse
uncontroversially is (djb does not grant any permission, at least that
I've seen, to distribute modified versions).

The way in which the original request was phrased was very unfortunate and
highly unlikely to result in anything other than the flames that did
result.  Really, ftpparse is just something that Debian isn't going to be
willing to distribute except as part of non-free.  There are various
reasons for that that people are going to agree with or not, and there's
little to no point in arguing about any of them since we've all heard them
and we've all individually made up our minds.

I've never seen any sign that djb was interested in changing any of his
licensing, so I would have recommended that the original poster not have
wasted their time asking.

> It's not acceptable to proclaim to various authors of respected software
> that their product must be relicensed, and NOW.

I agree.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@...)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

[Sean E. Covel]

Russ,

The "License" in question is this:

-----------------------------------------
/* ftpparse.c, ftpparse.h: library for parsing FTP LIST responses
D. J. Bernstein, djb@...
19970712 (doc updated 19970810)
Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs you're using
this in.

Currently covered:
EPLF.
UNIX ls, with or without gid.
Microsoft FTP Service.
Windows NT FTP Server.
VMS.
WFTPD (DOS).
NetPresenz (Mac).
NetWare.

Definitely not covered:
Long VMS filenames, with information split across two lines.
NCSA Telnet FTP server. Has LIST = NLST (and bad NLST for directories).

Written for maximum portability, but tested only under UNIX so far.
*/
----------------------------------------

The whole controversy is "Commercial use is fine, if you let me know
what programs you're using this in."  I was harassed endlessly by the
Debian "maintainer" for Prozilla a while back.  That's how I came to be
subscribed to this list...

Sean


Russ Allbery wrote:

> Casey Allen Shobe <lists@...> writes:
>
>
>>Who besides Debian users, who have chosen by the act of using Debian to
>>exclude themselves from the evils of GPL-incompatibility and thus should
>>understand that they will not be able to use all software and will run
>>into these problems time and time again, cares?
>
>
> Debian does not exclude software which is not GPL-compatible.  The
> previous poster was mistaken.  Quite a bit of GPL-incompatible software is
> in Debian (OpenAFS, for instance).  Debian only excludes software that
> does not comply with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which ftpparse
> uncontroversially is (djb does not grant any permission, at least that
> I've seen, to distribute modified versions).
>
> The way in which the original request was phrased was very unfortunate and
> highly unlikely to result in anything other than the flames that did
> result.  Really, ftpparse is just something that Debian isn't going to be
> willing to distribute except as part of non-free.  There are various
> reasons for that that people are going to agree with or not, and there's
> little to no point in arguing about any of them since we've all heard them
> and we've all individually made up our minds.
>
> I've never seen any sign that djb was interested in changing any of his
> licensing, so I would have recommended that the original poster not have
> wasted their time asking.
>
>
>>It's not acceptable to proclaim to various authors of respected software
>>that their product must be relicensed, and NOW.
>
>
> I agree.
>

[Russ Allbery]

Dropping urgent from the subject thread.

Sean Covel <seanecovel@...> writes:

> The "License" in question is this:

> -----------------------------------------
> /* ftpparse.c, ftpparse.h: library for parsing FTP LIST responses
> D. J. Bernstein, djb@...
> 19970712 (doc updated 19970810)
> Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs you're using
> this in.

Right.  Note that this doesn't grant the right to distribute modified
versions, which is required by the DFSG.

> The whole controversy is "Commercial use is fine, if you let me know
> what programs you're using this in."

That's what the discussion has been about, but I think it's actually a red
herring.  That's controversial and a matter of interpretation, but the
lack of permission to distribute modified versions is djb's intention, as
I recall from past list traffic, and is clear-cut in the DFSG (whereas the
notification issue isn't).

--
Russ Allbery (rra@...)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

[SeattleServer.com]

On Tuesday 24 May 2005 17:07, you wrote:
> Debian does not exclude software which is not GPL-compatible.  The
> previous poster was mistaken.  Quite a bit of GPL-incompatible software is
> in Debian (OpenAFS, for instance).  Debian only excludes software that
> does not comply with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which ftpparse
> uncontroversially is (djb does not grant any permission, at least that
> I've seen, to distribute modified versions).

I owe an apology to Debian then for my previous mail, for I was mistaken about
this myself.  However, I don't believe that something should be excluded from
distribution just because you can't alter it.  Looking at the abuse Red Hat
and other distributions have done to things before redistributing them makes
DJBs choice seem wise indeed.  The blame for the problems that inevitably
come from tampering without fully understanding always end up coming to the
original author first, and the public image of a product is that of the one
presented to them rather than the original unmodified product for what it is.

Refusing to redistribute something because you can't change it around as you
see fit, rather than what the author thinks, is silly.

Cheers,
--
Casey Allen Shobe | http://casey.shobe.info
cshobe@... | cell 425-443-4653
AIM & Yahoo:  SomeLinuxGuy | ICQ:  1494523
SeattleServer.com, Inc. | http://www.seattleserver.com

[Russ Allbery]

Casey Allen Shobe <lists@...> writes:

> I owe an apology to Debian then for my previous mail, for I was mistaken
> about this myself.  However, I don't believe that something should be
> excluded from distribution just because you can't alter it.

This is the bit where everyone's already heard all of the arguments and
everyone has already made up their mind.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@...)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>