offtopic: artículo de periódico

[Sandino Araico Sánchez]

José Neif Jury Fabre wrote:

>
> El problema es: que no es tan claro, no solo en Caldera, sino que en otras
> distribuciónes quienes no ponen en la caja un letrero suficientemente grande
> que diga "Este paquete contiene software que no puede ser redistribuido" o
> algo así.
>
> Para el caso específico de México las distribuciones no pueden incluir
> código que no sea libremente redistribuible o que se no se apegue a la GPL
> sin el mensaje de "Este paquete contiene software que no puede ser
> redistribuido" según los arículos siguientes de la Ley Federal de Protección
> al Consumidor:
>
> El artículo 38: "Las leyendas que restrinjan o limiten el uso del bien o el
> servicio deberán hacerse patentes en forma clara, veraz y sin ambigüedades."
>
> El artículo 42: "El proveedor está obligado a entregar el bien o suministrar
> el servicio de acuerdo con los términos y condiciones ofrecidos o implícitos
> en la publicidad o información desplegados, salvo convenio en contrario o
> consentimiento escrito del consumidor."

En este caso hay flagrancia de algo que no se debe hacer y alguien debe tomar
una acción legal al respecto (tal vez la A. C.). Esto es tema de discusión para
la plática del miércoles y pienso que se debería meter dentro de la orden del
día...

>
> > P: ?Atenta contra el espíritu del software libre hacerlo?
> >
> > R: Para Stallman y sí es bajo Linux, SI, para Linus Torvalds, NO,
> >    pero el mismo Stallman promueve la distribución de otro sofware GNU
> >    asociada a software comercial.
>
> Existe un parrafo en la GPL le hemos pedido que lo quite ya muchas veces.
>
> La GPL ya está vieja y requiere una actualización, en 1991 se redactó en
> unas condiciones diferentes a las que existen hoy en dia.

Bueno, me encontré dos opiniones de Linus que (aunque son específicas del
kernel) pueden ayudar enriquecer algunos puntos de vista con respecto al uso de
la licencia GPL...

----------COMIENZA CITA 1 DE LINUS------

Subject:
         Linux-2.4.0-test8
    Date:
         Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
   From:
         Linus Torvalds <torvalds en transmeta.com>
     To:
         Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel en vger.kernel.org>




Ok, as the truncate problems really seem to be fixed, it's time to do an
official test8, the first development kernel in about a year and a half
that should have a working truncate() again. Thanks to everybody who
tested, and especially to Al Viro who did a lot of the heavy lifting.

There are a number of other various changes there too - the truncate fix
itself was fairly small, it was just more complex than most problems that
can be solved in 50 lines of code.

The only one of any note that I'd like to point out directly is the
clarification in the COPYING file, making it clear that it's only _that_
particular version of the GPL that is valid for the kernel. This should
not come as any surprise, as that's the same license that has been there
since 0.12 or so, but I thought I'd make that explicit.

Why? There's been some discussions of a GPL v3 which would limit licensing
to certain "well-behaved" parties, and I'm not sure I'd agree with such
restrictions - and the GPL itself allows for "any version" so I wanted to
make this part unambigious as far as my personal code is concerned.

The reason I wanted to mention that particular issue here explicitly
(rather than as just a one-liner in the changelog) is that code written by
others is obviously under _their_ discretion, and not limited by my
personal foibles, fears and misgivings.

If anybody wants to explicitly state that their code will be valid under
any version of the GPL (current or future - whatever they may look like),
please send patches to say so for the code in question. If you've used the
FSF boiler-place copyright notice, you already have this in place (it says
"v2 or later" - the FSF itself doesn't recommend v1 any more).

(Me, I'm taking the careful "wait and see" approach. I don't know if a GPL
v3 is imminent, and I don't know if the issues discussed will even
_become_ real issues, so you might as well consider me a paranoid, if
careful, bastard).

                Linus

----------TERMINA CITA 1 DE LINUS--------

----------COMIENZA CITA 2 DE LINUS------

Subject:
         Re: Linux-2.4.0-test8
    Date:
         Fri, 8 Sep 2000 16:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
   From:
         Linus Torvalds <torvalds en transmeta.com>
     To:
         Jamie Lokier <lk en tantalophile.demon.co.uk>
     CC:
         Alan Cox <alan en lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Kernel Mailing List
<linux-kernel en vger.kernel.org>





On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>
> > I think an appropriate concern. The future GPL is constrained by the GPLv2
> > clause 9 to be 'similar in spirit...'. You also dont ever have to take any
> > code that specifies GPLv3 or later.
>
> Linus, nobody can ever force GPLv3 upon you.  If you don't like GPLv3
> when you actually see one, then you can restrict the kernel to GPLv2
> only and refuse contributions that don't honour that.

As I already explained to Alan in a private email, it's not about me
accepting other peoples GPLv3 code.

It's about the fact that when I chose the GPL, I did it because I wanted
the source-code to be free and unencumbered. Forever. Whether I maintained
that code or not. I didn't want my code to have any extra rules and
regulations - the GPLv2 is already quite complex enough, but it is, in my
opinion the "minimum required" complexity. So it suited and continues to
suit my needs and opinions admirably.

The fact that I still maintain my own code and can choose to ignore other
peoples code doesn't change that feeling. I want _my_ code to be out
there, freely available, and unencumbered by any extra restrictions,
forever and ever. Regardless of whether it is I who maintain it or not. I
obviously won't be able to maintain it _forever_, after all.

And I'd hate to see my code become part of something I don't like.

Thus the (current) limitation to v2. And only, obviously, for code _I_
wrote and hold the copyright to.

> I wouldn't be surprised if GPLv3 simply clarifies things.  Clearer legal
> language, clearer on dynamic linking etc.

I hope so. And yes, in the end I _believe_ so. It's just that I used to
believe so without even thinking about it. Last week some people opened my
eyes to the fact that I can't just take it for granted.

In the likely case that the GPL v3 is fine, I will license all my code
under "v2-v3". Maybe it even clarifies the issue of "similar in spirit",
so that I wouldn't need to worry at all about what the FSF considers
"similar" ever again, and I can stop worrying altogether.

I'm not against a new version of the GPL - I'm just spooked by some of the
things that have been discussed that _might_ be part of a new version of
the GPL. Things that would mean that if I didn't limit my code to the v2,
future code maintainers might use my code with restrictions or other
things that I never agreed to.

Quite frankly, I'm probably just jumpy. And part of this is very much
pre-emptive: making sure that the FSF knows that whatever they do, they
have to take other peoples feelings into account too, and not just make a
new version of the GPL on their own whims.

So don't read _too_ much into this. It just means that the FSF does not
have a blanket permission to expand upon the GPL as far as my personal
code is concerned. Nothing more.

                        Linus

----------TERMINA CITA 2 DE LINUS--------

>
> > P: Es legal usar el nombre "Linux" asociado a actividades comerciales?
> >
> > R: Eso lo decide Linus Torvalds, titular de la marca registrada.
>
> Deacuerdo, pero si se hacen valer las leyes que he mencionado y si Linus
> decide que si se puede usar su nombre con software que no es compatible con
> la GPL caería exactamente en el mismo problema que Debian y Stallman le
> critican a KDE, por publicar un programa bajo una licencia con la cual no lo
> podría publicar.

Ver citas 1 y 2 arriba:


--
Sandino Araico Sánchez
Dios nos da a todos nuestra botella de vida.
Unos se la beben a sorbitos, otros se la beben a tragos.
-- Pedro Infante



---------------------------------------------------------
para salir de la lista, enviar un mensaje con las palabras
"unsubscribe ayuda" en el cuerpo a majordomo en linux.org.mx