Please free Spamgourmet's source code

Discussion re sg development. You don't have to be a developer.

Please free Spamgourmet's source code

Postby lwc » Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:42 am

Spamgourmet's source code is available via an Artistic License. But since it doesn't mention which version, I guess there's no escape from accepting it's version 1.0.
The Free Software Foundation declared v1.0 as a non-free license and recommended against using it on its own.
The Open Source Initiative recommends all developers and projects to switch to from Artistic License 1.0 to 2.0 (currently the latest).
It should also be mentioned that version 2.0 has been around for years.

BTW, I think there's even a bigger problem. The source code doesn't actually contain the license and thus violates it...

Any thoughts about it?
lwc
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 9:09 am

Re: Please free Spamgourmet's source code

Postby smtpd » Tue Nov 15, 2022 7:49 am

hate to revive dead topic, but...

i guess we all owe a great debt to FSF, GNU, and RMS, but...

FSF is NOT FREE.

just look at the whole GPL version debacle.

GNU developers werent free to use GNU code because of the licence version... ridiculous. call that free?
now BSD has been FREE for ages, but no mention on FSF website. only GNU.
sure, BSD is only FREE because they saw RMS had a good idea, but pretending that the original FREE system on which the internet was released doesnt exist is just not cool. all so they can make GNU look better.
GPL = plug for FSF = plug for GNU = plug for RMS
now i love all those things, but lets not pretend they are the sole proprietors of freedom.

personally i go for "no rights reserved" (i hate copyright!), but admittedly GPL has done some great things, like make it easier for me to hack my router.
Last edited by smtpd on Wed Nov 16, 2022 8:34 am, edited 9 times in total.
sometime ago, i stopt using SG ``because i wasnt getting any spam.'' what an idiot!
smtpd
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2022 10:54 pm

Re: Please free Spamgourmet's source code

Postby lwc » Tue Nov 15, 2022 10:45 pm

I forgot that topic, I can't believe Spamgourmet is still not free after almost a decade since I posted this.

I see it's also discussed at GitHub, which even states:
comment wrote:This becomes important for us because the Artistic license v 2.0 is OSI approved and GPL compatible which we need for some sponsorship.
lwc
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 9:09 am

PROOF GPL is NOT FREE

Postby smtpd » Wed Nov 16, 2022 8:38 am

thanks for the link.

actually copyright law can not restrict the owners rights, so the owner saying a licence must be included, but not including it, is only really a problem if someone wants to redistribute it. then they have to get the licence and include it in their distribution themselves.

also, heres a mathematical proof that GPL is not free:
this proof is copyright RmacS, no rights reserved.

if code is free, you are free to publish it changed,
if those changes are free.

--- FREEDOM TO COMBINE.
* you have two codes, under licence A, B.
* you can not freely publish A changed by B.
* therefore A or B are not free.
* if A is similar to B (as to freedom),
then both are not free.

--- GPL.
* let there be two codes, one under GPL2, the other GPL3.
* you can not freely publish something made from both.
https://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html/
* therefore GPL2 or GPL3 are not free.
* GPL2 is similar to GPL3 (as to freedom).
* therefore GPL2 and GPL3 are not free.


this errata is copyright RmacS, no rights reserved.

fixed a bug in the proof. the assertion:
"if code is free, you are free to publish it changed"
was overly strong. added:
"if those changes are free."
if we had true freedom, it would have been vacuously true, but we dont.
Last edited by smtpd on Fri Nov 18, 2022 3:12 am, edited 3 times in total.
sometime ago, i stopt using SG ``because i wasnt getting any spam.'' what an idiot!
smtpd
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2022 10:54 pm

Re: Please free Spamgourmet's source code

Postby lwc » Wed Nov 16, 2022 9:15 pm

I think the discussion is about others using the code, not about the owners themselves (given the situation that the original owner is sadly no longer with us).

I don't think anyone out there ever thought any license is perfect (and there are many discussions about no why license at all as in "no rights reserved" is worse than having a license like GPL).
But GPL is a known standard, used by some of the most known free softwares (many of which even upgraded, like ScummVM recently, from GPLv2 to GPLv3) and compatible with other licenses.
If you want something less restricted (meaning competitors might take advantage), maybe go with MIT license.
lwc
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 9:09 am

Re: Please free Spamgourmet's source code

Postby smtpd » Wed Nov 16, 2022 9:32 pm

it is pretty obvious why those files are artistic licence. it is the perl licence. its quite possible josh modified someone elses files.

how can you call GPL "compatible" when GPL is not even compatible with GPL? (see above proof)

those "discussions" are all either
(a) "GPL GPL GPL" (see the above proof about GPL), or
(b) nonsense about the irrelevant question of "disclaiming copyright".
(c) nonsense about needing a free software operators "licence".
seems legit.

competitors taking advantage?
jesus! is this what "free" now means?
we cant let other people "take advantage" by running their own spam eating services?
possibly services that include, GOD FORBID, code under a DIFFERENT VERSION of the SAME "FREE" LICENCE! (GASP!)

"copyright NAME, no rights reserved" is
* nice, short, clean
* obviously the opposite of "all rights reserved"
* obviously not trying to disclaim copyright
* okay. you asked for it. here you go.
__________________
| YOUR NAME HERE |
| LICENSED SOFT- |
| WARE OPERATOR |
------------------

if you dont believe me, how about DANIEL J BERNSTEIN, the guy who won the "publishing source code is a first amendment protected right" case against the US? against. the. U.S. he licked 'em good!
https://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html
https://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html
sometime ago, i stopt using SG ``because i wasnt getting any spam.'' what an idiot!
smtpd
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2022 10:54 pm


Return to Developers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron