[Printing-architecture] Posted OP Arch Minutes (11 July 2007)

[Petrie, Glen]

I press the wrong button before finishing.

============================


One thing I'd like to make clear from the beginning: I'm NOT lobbying
to change the license for OP work to the GNU GPL, but you already knew
that, right?  I am trying to arrive at a license that is acceptable to
proprietary software vendors as well as *compatible* with the GNU GPL
for the simple reason that the current "restricted MIT" license
prevents use of any OP created software by software under the GNU GPL.

[[gwp]]I don't believe there are any licenses that are compatible with GNU
GPL in relationship to proprietary software.   GNU GPL has as one of its
explicit functions to "trap" developers in releasing their software.  I have
talked with a many company representatives on the subject of using GNU GPL
software and all of them, without exception, state they never use GNU GPL
software in their products.

>  < snip..>

You can't just go around modify things and change the licensing
conditions unless *all* copyright holders agree.  Just make sure that
all work done by OP is copyrighted by OP and OP can veto any license
changes.

[[gwp]] 1.) I am writing new code that is based on software that was
developed under the MIT license from IBM.  So I am currently the only
holder.  2.) I have discussed the license with the holders of the original
content and they agreed with the license modification. 3.) The Steering
Committee of the OP has agreed to this license and any attempt to change
that license will result in my withdrawing my software from Open-Printing.

What you *can* do is built something on top of OP work and put that
out under the GNU GPL.  However, that does not mean that the OP work
is or has to be re-licensed to GNU GPL.  We did this with PCM.  The
PCM daemon and plug-ins are MIT/X.  The CUPS and SANE samples are GPL.

[[gwp]] But you can not change this code and make it GNU GPL.  And
integrating with GNU GPL will not make this code be GNU GPL; that would be a
violation of the license.  The PCM is MIT because the OP steering committee
has mandated non-GNU_GPL licensing for all software.    (As for the CUPS and
SANE sample, technically they should have been MIT license if they were part
of OP official work products unless they were written outside of the OP
activity.)


# Or, at least I was quite sure that was the case this until I re-read
#
#   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible
#   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean
#
# Time for yet another round of GPL study and digging up some sample
# cases ... :-(

Also, keep in mind that anyone sufficiently determined (and the GNU
project qualifies) could make a clean room implentation of any OP spec
and release that under the GNU GPL.  Unless the license of the spec
works like the GNU GPL and extends its reach to any implementations by
claiming they are material modifications of the spec, that is.

[[gwp]] The specification for the API will also be the modified MIT license.
What that ultimately means for an "extended reach" will have to be
determined.  I don't think the point is about someone "sufficiently
determined" wanting to make a clean room implementation of the OP spec; the
real point here is that companies do not use GNU GPL software and I believe
they would use and following the modified MIT license software.  Personally,
I don't want to create a set of API spec's and software that no one will use
other than a few independent developers.


<snip..>

FWIW, the extra restriction triggers pretty much the same situation as
the "advertising clause" of the Original BSD license did.

  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD

The only way for GPL'd software to use OP software under a restricted
MIT license would involve adding an exception to the license.  In
effect, the software has to be relicensed to use OP software.

  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs

Trying to imagine how this "trap prevention" scheme works for those on
the other side of our "ideological divide", I was left wondering how a
proprietary software vendor would create "any material modification"
without further restricting a user's "rights to use, copy, modify,
merge, publish, distribute, and/or sell copies" of it.

FYI, I interpret that clause to mean that the user gets *all* of those
rights, not just a meaningless subset that only contains "use".  How
would a proprietary software vendor not restrict my rights to copy,
modify, merge, publish, distribute and sell copies?  At least for the
modify and merge one would already need the source.


< snip..>

The GNU GPL is "No Free Lunch", you pay for what you take.  That makes
perfect business sense to me.  It's just that you have to pay in a way
proprietary software vendors are not likely to like.

[[gwp]] GNU GPL is "No Free Lunch"; for sure.  So you are telling me that
FSF and individuals using the GNU GPL license are in business of having
others """"pay"""" for the use of their """""free"""""" GNU GPL software by
having others release their code.  That's an interesting business they are
in.  But it finally makes it very clear to me that GNU GPL software does not
mean free software.  What I want to do is create truly free software that
anyone can use with a """"paying"""" for it. 


Back to the license the OP wants to use, I do think that a quest to
develop "printing architecture, documentation and software that can be
used freely by anyone without the concerns, worries and legal problems
of the license associated with the software" is a noble goal.  It's
just that the "restricted MIT" license puts a lot of people out in the
cold (unless they relicense) trying to achieve it.  In a way, adding
the restriction makes it impossible to satisfy what you quote as the
OP's primary goal as it can't make good on the "used freely by anyone"
part.

[[gwp]] I am interested in the wider adoption and use of OP software, API,
etc..  If other """"free"""" software developers want to be part; then they
may have to re-license in such a way that there software is free and
compatible.

Not that I have any at the moment, but are there no alternatives?
Some license that is acceptable to both sides?  Maybe we could contact
the FSF or Creative Commons about the issue?  Should we?  They have a
lot of legal expertise in this area.

[[gwp]] I don't see any alternatives, under the current GNU GPL license, of
how to make something acceptable to both sides.

<snip..>

A lot of proprietary software companies will balk at contributing to
GPL'd software, yes.  Other companies that rely less on competitivity
strangling approaches to make a living don't and are happy to let any
outsider contribute.  There is a lot of great software out there that
is actively adopted and adapted to suit their needs by companies,
governments and individuals alike.

[[gwp]] My experience is that companies, governments and individuals use the
software for their own (internal) use and freely use any software available
without worrying about repercussions.  But that is not the case for the
software and api's being developed here.   They are public for use and not
really targeted to sampling internal use.

FYI, a substantial part of CUPS is GPL.  The libraries are LGPL.

[[gwp]]  Yes CUPS is GPL but CUPS has also been strictly controlled in it
development by its owner; a good thing perhaps.   As to LGPL; several patent
lawyers I have talked with argue that LGPL is only superficially better than
GNU GPL and have been advised to avoid using LGPL software. 

<snip..>

If you care about the OpenPrinting stuff getting used, you should
consider whether a restrictive MIT license is in the best interest of
OP stuff getting used, because as it is now it can't be used by a
great deal of existing software.

[[gwp]] I go with original statement that the oal of Open-Printing, I
believe, is coherence for printing; not software or license traps.

<snip..>

With a restricted MIT license they have just as much to worry about
getting sued as with the GNU GPL.  Recalling the GPL violation that
made EPSON AVASYS famous ;-), not once were we threatened with a law
suit.  The FSF are very friendly people.  It's not the GNU GPL license
violation that gets you sued (unless perhaps when you are extremely
uncooperative and keep violating it) but your patent violations.  And
these will get you sued no matter what license you use.

[[gwp]] Then explain to me why every patent lawyer and software development
manager/engineer I have talked with, where proprietary software is involved,
will not use or incorporate GNU GPL software.  

<snip..>

I personally believe Free Software stands to lose.  As a result, the
individual user stands to lose as well.

[[gwp]] As you pointed out above, GNU GPL is "No Free Lunch" and is not
free.  My goal and hope is that the modified MIT license is a "Free Lunch"
and is free and that others will join if they are interesting truly free
software.