Subject: Another reason to go GPL

From: andrew morgan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 09:55:37 -0800 (PST)

Here's another reason we should go GPL with netatalk.  Samba has a piece
of code which does quotas on Veritas File Systems which I need to use at
our site.  Same problem as the file locking code though.  We can't take
GPL code and place it in netatalk without releasing netatalk as GPL.

I may be able to get permission from the author of that particular piece
of code to include it in netatalk anyways, but the samba project itself
will not release the code for our use.

GPL - just do it.  :P

	Andy

---

From: Matthew Keller <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 13:11:28 -0500

While we're on this topic, I just shut down the licensing survey on
the SourceForge site. The results were pretty much as reflected in the
lists: (please remember that this survey was not scientific, just a tool
used to gauge overall opinions and such. It didn't appear to have any
instances of ballot-stuffing - Thank you all for your cooperation on that).
	Where to go from here? I don't know. After we get 1.5 out the door,
this will become more important.

	(++ = 1, + = 2, 0 = 3, - = 4, -- = 5)

Keep BSD-style licensing:
	3 ++
	1 +
	1 0
	1 -
GPL all of Netatalk
	6 ++
	4 +
	2 0
LGPL lib, GPL everything else
	3 ++
	5 +
	1 0
	1 -
LGPL all of Netatalk
	2 ++
	1 +
	5 0
	3 -

On 2001.03.27 12:55:37 -0500 andrew morgan wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Netatalk-devel mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/netatalk-devel
> 
> 
-- 
Matthew Keller
Enterprise System Analyst
Computing & Technology Services
Information Services Division
State University of NY at Potsdam

http://mattwork.potsdam.edu/

---

From: "Daniel E. Lautenschleger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 12:27:03 -0600 (CST)

Here, here! Let's go GPL...

-Dan

-- 

Daniel E. Lautenschleger
University of Wisconsin
R.M. Bock Laboratories
Network Administrator and Computer Support
[email-masked]

---

From: "Bruce A. Burdick, Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 12:27:38 -0600

A reason not to go GPL: companies will be less likely to assist with
development if they can't release their own version without being
_compelled_ to give away everything they've done on it.

Perhaps Samba should consider the BSD license.

GPL: please don't.

-B...

> From: andrew morgan <[email-masked]>
> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 09:55:37 -0800 (PST)
> To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Another reason to go GPL
> Resent-From: [email-masked]
> Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 13:04:14 -0500 (EST)
> 
>

---

From: "Daniel E. Lautenschleger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 12:44:13 -0600 (CST)

Well, I'd say we really don't have a long history of companies just
itchin' to help with Netatalk anyways.

-Dan

-- 

Daniel E. Lautenschleger
University of Wisconsin
R.M. Bock Laboratories

---

From: Matthew Keller <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 15:06:15 -0500

> _compelled_ to give away everything they've done on it.

	Couch that as "some companies" and I'll whole-heartedly agree with
you. There are others who won't assist because their contributions aren't
guaranteed free. For example, company X adds widget support to Netatalk,
company Y - under the BSD license - can take that widget support code and
add it to their proprietary product. I've worked with a lot more
clients/companies that dislike the BSD license for those reasons, than
don't want to be forced to commit code (although they do exist, don't get
me wrong).

> Perhaps Samba should consider the BSD license.

	This has been discussed a number of times, and always met with
overwhelming rejection.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 16:24:23 -0500

It's no problem to release netatalk under a GPL license, so long as all of
the previous licenses are kept.  Presuming GPL will allow that, you should
do as it suits the current developers.

BTW, the volunteer from the sourceforge netatalk team on [email-masked]
is now bouncing mail.  Someone from that group should read 
[email-masked]
since questions about 1.5 go there.

:wes

---

From: "Bruce A. Burdick, Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 15:57:07 -0600

I don't understand how that can work. The GPL, once adopted, establishes a
form of compulsion -- it does not allow what you've described. Suppose code
from another GPL project is incorporated: the presence of that code prevents
netatalk in its entirety from ever being used in a BSD-licensed context
without replacing that code. That's how the GPL works. In the long run, it
permanently prevents BSD-style freedoms such as using the code in a
proprietary release. The code would be balkanized into separate licenses.
The licenses don't coexist by covering the whole project.

A company who makes such a release would have quite a bit invested in its
relationship with the community that developed the base code. Observe Apple
and the FreeBSD crowd.

GPL effectively eliminates ownership through progressively entangling
obligations on the part of the coders. BSD provides a form of shared
ownership, in which the codebase may be forked freely as needed and
participating developers each retain full discretion regarding the
disposition of their work -- public or private.

I have not developed a stitch of netatalk. So this is not my decision. But
thank you for hearing me out.

-B...

> From: [email-masked]
> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 16:24:23 -0500
> To: andrew morgan <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Another reason to go GPL
> Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 16:31:45 -0500 (EST)
>

---

From: Matthew Keller <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 19:13:21 -0500

> disposition of their work -- public or private.

	Your e-mail is mostly right-on. I will, however, take issues with
your statement that the "participating developers each retain full
discretion" with BSD-licensed code. I have written number BSD-licensed
programs and applications that snippets or full code trees were taken, and
merged into quite famous works, with nothing my name embedded in the
binaries if you do a "strings" command on them. The BSD license does not
protect the developers, or the code. It allows either to be used as anyone
sees fit. Yes, this is the extreme of freedom, which some people
like/enjoy/want (and I do as well for certain projects), but to claim that
the BSD license gives the developers ANY discretion regarding the code is a
fallacy.

	NOTE: This discussion began on the [email-masked]
list - And seems to have started being cross-posted recently onto
[email-masked]. I *HIGHLY* recommend that those on
netatalk-admins who are interested in further discussing this, join the
netalk-devel list (and read the archives). There has been a lot said about
this already, and I for one don't want to have to rehash all of that for a
new list.

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul Sander)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 21:19:30 -0800

I must agree with Bucky's statement below.  As a developer of free software, I
have a strong distaste for the type of facism that the Gnu project markets
in the name of freedom to redistribute software in a cooperative community.
My experience with certain Gnu projects has also been that they tend to be
unresponsive about making much-needed changes, including bug fixes, even when
they're given patches to the latest public releases.

I've contributed to some Gnu code, but I prefer to I donate to the public
domain in hopes that my stuff will be useful to someone out there, regardless
of whether or not I'm credited or compensated; I've even turned down offers
of donations for my efforts.  But BSD-style licensing is just as palatable to
me.

People who understand the locking protocols can reimplement the code as
needed; aside from laziness (which is indeed a compelling reason), there's
little to be gained from using someone else's code and living with their
license requirements.  Gnu licenses are more restrictive than BSD; if the
Gnu people like BSD code, they can redistribute it with the proper credits.

--- Forwarded mail from [email-masked]

--- End of forwarded message from [email-masked]

---

From: Matthew Geier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:41:36 +1000

> Perhaps Samba should consider the BSD license.

 One of the samba team posted a counter to that in the samba list this
morning - GPL stops people from enhancing their own version and
withholding it from the community. The Samba team have VERY strong views
on the matter. If you enchance samba , they want to be able to use it in
the public releases.
 He in particular mentioned why they thought the BSD licence was not
suitable for their work.

-- 
Matthew Geier			[email-masked]
Arts IT Unit			+61 2 9351 4713
Sydney University

---

From: a sun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 21:49:22 -0800

umm, it really isn't the same problem. veritas has an api for querying
quota information. netatalk has a single file that deals with
specifics on quota info. if using the standard quota interface doesn't
work with veritas, writing a bit of code to interface with veritas'
api shouldn't be a hard task. you can even use the gpl code as a
reference for the veritas api, and it won't cause any problems.

the issue with the samba locking code is very different as they don't
provide standard api's that we can call without becoming
GPL-encumbered. that's their decision. of course, we could always
re-implement the samba locking scheme ourselves, but that would be a
lot of duplication of effort to avoid a license change.

in this debate on gpl, i think we need to distinguish between aspects
that a license change would clearly help (integrating samba locking)
from those that probably should be left to re-implementation (quota
details). what i don't want to see is the inclusion of code just
because it happens to have a compatible license. 

-a

---

From: Jeffry Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:03:19 -0500

> they're given patches to the latest public releases.

Be aware that GNU/FSF != GPL.  Linux is under a GPL license, but the code is NOT GNU controlled.  Samba is under the GPL, but is NOT GNU controlled.  GPL does NOT require any loss of copyright control to the FSF, unless you specifically grant them the rights (which they require for GNU projects).

jeff

---

From: Matthew Keller <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:43:46 -0500

On 2001.03.28 09:03:19 -0500 Jeffry Smith wrote:
> Be aware that GNU/FSF != GPL.  Linux is under a GPL license, but the code
> is NOT GNU controlled.  Samba is under the GPL, but is NOT GNU
> controlled.  GPL does NOT require any loss of copyright control to the
> FSF, unless you specifically grant them the rights (which they require
> for GNU projects).

	To further reinforce this- GPL does NOT stand for GNU Public
License, it stands for General Public License. As stated previously, the
attitude of the project maintainers, does is not because of which license
they use. I've tried to sumbit patches to a lot of BSD-esque license
projects- Some of them get accepted, some of them don't (same with GPL
licensed, Mozilla licensed, etc.). Every *project* is unique, and has
nothing to do with the underlying license.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:07:31 -0500

> lot of duplication of effort to avoid a license change.

Also, according to the samba home page, they are planning to rewrite the
locking code.  Perhaps they would be willing to make it LGPL, and provide
well a documented API.

:wes

---

From: "Bruce A. Burdick, Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:10:51 -0600

> From: Jeffry Smith <[email-masked]>
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:03:19 -0500
> 
> Be aware that GNU/FSF != GPL.  Linux is under a GPL license, but the code is
> NOT GNU controlled.  Samba is under the GPL, but is NOT GNU controlled.  GPL
> does NOT require any loss of copyright control to the FSF, unless you
> specifically grant them the rights (which they require for GNU projects).

While this is true, it's not what prompted my earlier posting. GPL doesn't
require loss of copyright control to the FSF: true. But, once GPL code from
another author is incorporated in a project, a copyright owner who wishes to
exercise any of his ownership rights is obligated to excise the code he
didn't write. This obligation doesn't exist in the BSD license. Each
iteration of a GPL project progressively entangles an author's copyright in
this manner.

Sorry, Matthew, for posting again on this. I'll now drop it, as you asked.

-B...

---

From: Matthew Keller <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:01:00 -0500

On 2001.03.28 11:10:51 -0500 "Bruce A. Burdick, Jr." wrote:
> But, once GPL code from another author is incorporated in a project, 
> a copyright owner who wishes to
> iteration of a GPL project progressively entangles an author's copyright
> in this manner.

	I think "excise" is a little harsh. GPL'd code I've written has
been incorporated into numerous projects that I've never even participated
in - And I think that's great. I don't want to control WHO or WHAT can use
my code - I just want to know that if anyone DOES use it, they are
obligated to use it within other free projects, and contribute any
improvements they've made. The code I've written under contract for
Netatalk (and thusly is closed) could rocket Netatalk quite far.
Unfortunately, most companies are lazy. If they don't HAVE to contribute
improvements, they won't. They'll keep them close and never let them out
(see the netatalk-devel archives on Sourceforge for more on that topic, I
don't want to rehash this again on this list).

> Sorry, Matthew, for posting again on this. I'll now drop it, as you

	I never asked for this issue to be dropped - We **NEED** to discuss
this. We **NEED** for everyone, pro/con/neutral, to not only understand the
differences between these licenses, but understand the ramifications of any
change as it pertains to Netatalk. I will NEVER ask you to drop it- I may
correct your misstatements or misunderstandings to prevent the spread of
FUD, but I'll never ask you to cease (and if I did/do, you have my
permission to slap me :)
-- 
Matthew Keller
Enterprise System Analyst
Computing & Technology Services
Information Services Division
State University of NY at Potsdam

---

From: a sun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:31:03 -0800

unfortunately, jeremy has repeatedly stated to me that samba will
not LGPL any of its code.

-a

---

From: "Daniel E. Lautenschleger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 13:57:15 -0600 (CST)

Yo, Adrian! Sorry...I couldn't help myself.

What Netatalk package is currently being used in the Cobalt Qubes?
Anything that is freely distributable to the Unix crowd?

Thanks.
-Dan

---

From: "Bruce A. Burdick, Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 13:58:31 -0600

> From: Matthew Keller <[email-masked]>
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:01:00 -0500
> 

My fault. Bad choice of words. I misinterpreted you: I thought you were
implying that the discussion had raged and ended on devel list.

Your points have been well-taken. And as you are a principal player in
netatalk's development, you _must_ have much more say than I (a gregarious
user of netatalk), and _your_ desires must be reflected in the license you
all choose. And I have to admit that your stated desires are better
accommodated by the GPL. I was directing my comments toward the foundations
of those desires. I was also concerned, given the comments of others, that
the GPL was going to be adopted in Grand Lemming Style (i.e. because
"everyone else is doing it"). You have obviously thought about what the
license decision will mean to you. In my view, only those who have done that
mental work should determine what license you (collectively, now) choose.
For those of you have done that I hope you will be able (or have been able)
to persuade any stragglers to properly weigh these considerations. I'm glad
we agree that this is an important issue.

-B...

---

From: Matthew Keller <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:41:23 -0500

> implying that the discussion had raged and ended on devel list.

	No problem - My only statement regarding the lists was that I
didn't want to have to re-state everything we just spent a month or two
discussing on the Netatalk-devel list. ALWAYS happy to hear new comments,
opinions, and engage in productive, rational discussions.

> netatalk's development, you _must_ have much more say than I (a
> gregarious user of netatalk), and _your_ desires must be reflected in 
> the license you all choose. 

	Let's reword "a principal player" to "hopefully a future principle
player". I have a lot of code I'd like to see in Netatalk - some of it
wholesale stolen from Samba, some of it that I've written previously and
could/have already convinced the money-people that "own" it to allow me to
release if Netatalk GPL's - But I quite honestly have nothing but bugfixes
in the present tree. My time and energies are directed elsewhere at this
time. 

> I was also concerned, given the comments of others,
> that the GPL was going to be adopted in Grand Lemming Style (i.e. because
> "everyone else is doing it").

	Yes, I will freely admit that this is always a concern - I have
clients who want to jump in and GPL all of their code and I have to sit
down with them and slow things down: Educate them as to the ramifications,
etc. - We also have Netatalk constituents who want to GPL the code for the
wrong reasons (or no reason at all, other than "getting locking from Samba"
(which is only one of many benefits of GPLing this project).

> I'm glad we agree that this is an important issue.

	As am I! I am working very hard at ensuring that no one gets left
in the dust over any switch we make (unless they are simply too arrogant to
even HAVE GPL'd code/binaries on their system because of irrational distate
- And yes, sadly enough, these people do exist), and also working EQUALLY
hard to make sure that not only do we switch - if we switch - for the
"right reasons", but that everyone understands what they are (whether they
agree with them or not. ;)

---

From: Bob Rogers <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:42:44 -0500

From: Matthew Geier <[email-masked]>
   Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:41:36 +1000

   One of the samba team posted a counter to that in the samba list this
   morning - GPL stops people from enhancing their own version and
   withholding it from the community . . .

This is not 100% true; as I understand it, you can enhance GPLed code
and keep your modifications proprietary as long as they are only used
in-house.  So only resellers are affected.  And even resellers should be
reassured by the fact that this restriction can work to their benefit:
Their competitors will be able to get the enhancements they sell, but
they will also be able to get any enhancements sold by competitors.  In
the GPL world, resellers couldn't compete on features any more, since
everybody would be selling approximately the same thing, but doesn't the
real money come from support contracts anyway?  And the feature list
might actually grow faster under GPL.

   Of course, this is not a legal opinion, but it is based on having
recently studied Open Source licenses for a commercially-funded project
now getting underway.  We decided to adopt the GNU GPL largely because
it prohibits "taking the code private" and potentially usurping the
active development stream.  And we expect companies to be more willing
to publish their local enhancements knowing that the playing field is
level.

   With that said, I should mention that I am talking about a CAD
application, so we expect the developers and users to come from IC
design shops; we do not expect any resellers.  These companies are not
in the CAD business, so releasing patches is not going to affect their
business, even if it helps their competitors indirectly.  And they can
still keep their locally-developed stuff private, if that is a concern.
I realize that netatalk is in a different situation, since there are
already a number of resellers who are part of the community, and
changing the license would put new constraints on how they do business.

   So, I'm rooting for GPL, but realize that it may not be appropriate.

   My $0.02 (albeit greatly inflated).

					-- Bob Rogers

---

From: Matthew Keller <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:41:23 -0500