>>>>> "Jeremy" == Jeremy Stanley <fu...@yuggoth.org> writes:
Jeremy> Your earlier message also implied the motives behind
Jeremy> Conservancy's recommendations to be something other than a
Jeremy> desire to protect projects relying on free/libre open source
Jeremy> software licenses from making costly mistakes. Suggesting
Jeremy> that their interpretation of these licenses is driven by an
Jeremy> ulterior motive strikes me as a gross mischaracterization,
Jeremy> particularly in light of the ways in which they
Jeremy> (individually and collectively) have demonstrated a
Jeremy> dedication to core values of software freedom over the
Jeremy> years.
I actually think that the SFC has a strong motive to defend copyleft.
Certainly their leaders have taken strong pro-copyleft positions.
I don't think it is negative to them to describe them that way at all.
I think there are times when the desire to establish a strong copyleft
is in conflict with the desire to accurately articulate the legal risks
associated with something Debian might do.
I'd totally turn to the conservancy if I wanted advice on how to best
defend copyleft. Similarly i'd totally turn to them if I wanted help
with community GPL enforcement.
But the individuals in the SFC (if not the organization) have a vested
interest in the strong interpretation of the GPL.
So do many parts of Debian. But not all: BSD and LGPL are also free
software licenses and you can comply with the social contract without
supporting copyleft at all.
And the fact is we don't know what would happen in the courts in a lot
of situations. I attended a session at Libreplanet this year where a
lawyer talked about what actual rulings the courts have made about the
GPL and copyleft. It's not clear. Cases like Oracle V Google and the
German Vmware case both surprised us in various ways.
And there are cases where courts will listen to what happens in
practice. If everyone or a lot of people are interpreting a license a
particular way, that can potentially influence courts..
Case law matters and case law is influenced by what companies actually
do and how copyright holders and licensees actually use software.
Jeremy> To be clear, I seriously doubt Conservancy (or more
Jeremy> precisely, the fine individuals within Conservancy involved
Jeremy> in debating this topic over the years) would have been
Jeremy> "upset" if Debian chose to act counter to their
Jeremy> opinions. I'm quite sure they know that they don't control
Jeremy> the choices of the Debian community, and are therefore not
Jeremy> responsible for any additional risk that Debian knowingly
Jeremy> takes on itself or passes on to its users.
It's not the risk that Debian passes on to its users.
It's what Debian says and what happens if that becomes part of an
argument in a court case.
Also, even if it never comes up in court, Debian's actions could
influence others.
If Debian takes a strong position it makes it easier to argue that in
order to get your software actually used, you need to interpret the GPL
strictly.
If Debian takes a weaker position then as a practical matter you can
commercially succeed by releasing CDDL works that are combined with GPL
works, at least until a court says you cannot.
I am quite certain that factors like this were considered by Debian. It
was more than just the legal risks that were considered. I have not
talked to the conservancy yet (although they did reach out to me when
this issue came up again). I have read some of the correspondance
between the DPL at the time and the FSF and I can assure you that
choosing an interpretation of the GPL that defended copyleft was
something the FSF cared about.
I will be completely unsurprised to learn that the conservancy also
cared about interpreting the GPL in a manner that preserves copyleft.
And again, this is a matter of interpretation. Vmware has taken a
different interpretation and so far they've won their court cases.
