Subject: fvwm license going to be revoked

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:55:07 +0100

With the next fvwm release, I plan to modify the license on the
parts of fvwm that I have written:

Using my code will be allowed under the terms of the GNU Public
License for:

 - private use everywhere,
 - use by non-government organisations that have humanitarian
   goals or fight against all forms of war,
 - use by anybody in the countries that do not dispatch military
   forces against Iraq.
 
Using fvwm is explicitly forbidden in any country that does send
military forces against Iraq:

 - in their public administration and government
 - in educational institutions and research istitutes
 - in companies.

These terms will be in force for the duration of the war plus one
hour for every killed civilian.

I can not bear the thought that my work has any part in killing
people, no matter how small; for example at universities that
further the development of weapons by their research.  I am fully
aware this is unjust towards many people, but killing is a much
greater injustice.  I will listen to suggestions to improve these
licensing terms, though.

Fvwm is distributed under the terms of the GNU Public License
which enforces the same license on all modifications of the code.
But there are central source files that have only been touched by
me and for which I hold the copyright.  Therefore I think I have
the right to do this.  The license of all versions in the past
will not change and anybody may continue to work on fvwm on this
base.

Everybody who knows how much time I spent improving fvwm should
know how difficult this step is for me.  So, please, spare me any
flares, especially of the anti-German type.

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

 --
Dominik Vogt, [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:11:59 -0500

>  - in educational institutions and research istitutes

You need to aim your arrows better.  You got me and I don't
like killing people either.

-- 
Dan Espen                           E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: SCoTT SMeDLeY <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:15:02 +1100

Hi Dominik,

: With the next fvwm release, I plan to modify the license on the
: parts of fvwm that I have written:

Have you read this GPL FAQ?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL

I support your cause, but I'm not sure a modified licence
is going to be as legally watertight as GPL.

SCoTT. :)
-- 
[email-masked]

---

From: "S. Anderson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:03:07 -0700

I think its good that warfools should not be allowed to use fvwm,
ever.

cya,
sa

---

From: Alexander Kotelnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:22:30 -0500

>>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:55:07 +0100
>>>>> "dv" == dominik vogt <[email-masked]> wrote:
dv> 
dv> With the next fvwm release, I plan to modify the license on the
dv> parts of fvwm that I have written:

Dominik, war and murders are not good but what you are doing can be
called stupid.

If you insist on this license change it will be required that you
list all files you are able to relicense. These should be the ones,
that have been written and corrected only by you.

Obvious stupidity of this temporal relicense is that it will expire
shortly (if you do not change you mind and relicense it again) so that
nobody will even note the change.

>From the other side, just after you change the license fvwm will
become non-DFSG clean
(http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html#guidelines),
new versions will not be suitable for distribution within Debian.

With this step you wont hurt US/British goverment. You will mostly
hurt many free software users.

-- 
Alexander Kotelnikov
Saint-Petersburg, Russia

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:06:23 +0000

I am disappointed. How exactly fvwm is affected by one world conflict.
We have hundreds of world conflicts yearly, millions of people die.
If we change a licence hundreds of times every year where will we come?

Sorry, fvwm is a peaceful project, please don't make it a slave of
someone's political ambitions.

Anyway,

  1) You can't change the license of the already released GPL'd works
  2) The code in cvs is GPL'd, if you add any other code it is still
     GPL'd, if you want to start a political-non-GPL-fvwm, please do
     it in another cvs repository

I am fully with your pain, but what you want to do is just silly.
This is not any different from the steps of the side you are fighting
against. Politicans of side A decide politicans of side B are bad
so the people of side B should be punished. And you decide that the
politicans of side A are bad so the people of side A should be punished.

Let's stay away from the politics here, it is too dirty to even discuss.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: "Paul D. Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Mar 2003 01:01:37 -0500

Hi Dominik;

Leaving aside the context, let me make a few points from a legal
perspective:

 1) As you point out, you can only change the license on versions of the
    code which have not yet been released; you can't retroactively change
    the license on versions already released.  So this would only impact
    the next releases.

 2) Also as you point out, you can only change the license on files
    which you alone hold copyright to: that is you wrote them in the
    first place and are the only one who's modified them.

 3) If you do change the license to "Dominik-GPL", then your copyright
    will become legally incompatible with the rest of the FVWM code,
    which is licensed under the GNU GPL.  The GNU GPL does not allow
    restrictions such as the ones you mention.  Remember that even the
    old BSD license was incompatible with the GPL until Berkeley
    rescinded the advertising clause, and that was minor compared with
    the changes you are proposing.

    That means that we cannot make any new releases of FVWM until either
    (a) all the incompatibly licensed code is removed, or (b) the
    license is changed back to vanilla GPL, or (c) all the rest of the
    code is also changed to allow distribution under the terms and
    conditions of "Dominik-GPL".  Any attempt to release the code would
    be violating its own license and thus illegal (if you are the sole
    copyright holder you can of course violate your own license: you are
    not bound by licenses on code you have copyright to... but no one
    person has copyright to all the FVWM code).

 4) Even assuming we could get everyone with a copyright stake in FVWM
    to agree to change the license to make releasing a new version
    legal, this license is not free according to either the Open Source
    definition or the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which means that
    FVWM would have to be dropped from a number of Linux distributions.

 5) Not only that but some of the libraries or other "3rd party" code
    that FVWM links with may be covered by the GPL as well (we'd have to
    check this though), and if so that would mean we could no longer
    link FVWM with that code.

The situation sucks but I don't know that this is the right approach for
speaking out about it.  In the end it's of course up to you as it's your
code.

Peace.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>          Find some GNU make tips at:
 http://www.gnu.org                      http://make.paulandlesley.org
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:25:30 +0100

Let me make some comments to the issues that have come up.

 1) My motivation is by no means political.  It is solely based on
    moral.  I can not bear that my work is misused to kill people.
    I do not mean to punish or antagonise anybody, but I am trying
    to save myself.

 2) I am fully aware that such a change of the license will make
    it impossible to ship fvwm as part of Debian and other Linux
    distributions.

 3) Given the results of similar wars in the past, I do not think
    the license will last only for a short period of time, but for
    years (i.e. many thousand civilians killed, like in
    Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc.).

 4) I am thinking about allowing to "buy" the right to use fvwm by
    making a donation to one of the mentioned non-government
    organisations, for example Amnesty International.  I assume
    that nobody accepting or helping the war will do this.  I trust
    people's common sense when they decide the actual sum to
    donate (of course other forms of donations are accepted too).

 5) Determining a way how the license can cooexist with the GPL is
    a very delicate matter.  It will take time to write down a
    water-proof license.

 6) In case I can not find a license I currently see the only the
    option to completely cease contributing to the open source
    community.

Thank everybody for the comments.  I *am* listening to all
complaints, suggestions, etc.
 
Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: "Paul D. Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Mar 2003 09:20:42 -0500

%% Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]> writes:

  dv>  5) Determining a way how the license can cooexist with the GPL is
  dv>     a very delicate matter.  It will take time to write down a
  dv>     water-proof license.

Unfortunately(?) the GPL is extremely robust in the face of such things.
Any license which adds _any_ restriction beyond what is required by the
GPL is not compatible with the GPL, and cannot be combined with code
licensed under it.

As I mentioned before, even the BSD advertising clause, which _was_
perfectly acceptable to both Debian and the OSS, was not compatible with
the GPL.

There is absolutely no possible way a license with clauses such as the
ones you described previously can coexist with GPL'd code, no matter how
carefully crafted or how much time is spent on it.

The exact same freedoms that we depend on to keep our code free from
proprietary use are the ones which prevent you from restricting its use
by the entities you mention--as is so often the case, sharp tools cut
both ways.

  dv>  6) In case I can not find a license I currently see the only the
  dv>     option to completely cease contributing to the open source
  dv>     community.

That would be a great shame, to be sure.  I sincerely hope it doesn't
come to that.

Peace.

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:35:13 +0100

> by the entities you mention--as is so often the case, sharp tools cut

Well, maybe there is.  The GPL covers only the right to
distribute, modify and copy the software:

  Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
  covered by this License; they are outside its scope.  The act of
  running the Program is not restricted, ...

Strictly speaking, the GPL forgets to grant anybody the right of
using the software.  So, as long as I do not care about whether
the source code or binaries are copied, modified or distributed, I
think I can still restrict running it.

> That would be a great shame, to be sure.  I sincerely hope it doesn't

I do not want this either.  It would have almost the same effect,
except that nobody would notice.

> Peace.

Amen.

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: "Paul Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Mar 2003 09:47:57 -0500

>> carefully crafted or how much time is spent on it.

  dv> Well, maybe there is.  The GPL covers only the right to
  dv> distribute, modify and copy the software:

  dv>   Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
  dv>   covered by this License; they are outside its scope.  The act of
  dv>   running the Program is not restricted, ...

  dv> Strictly speaking, the GPL forgets to grant anybody the right of
  dv> using the software.  So, as long as I do not care about whether
  dv> the source code or binaries are copied, modified or distributed, I
  dv> think I can still restrict running it.

I don't think this is the case.  The key point is not whether you can
restrict things that the GPL doesn't address, it's whether the resulting
license is compatible with the GPL.

The relevant section is this:

    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    parties under the terms of this License.
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And this:

  But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is
  a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on
  the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees
  extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless
  of who wrote it.

It must be entirely released under the GPL itself, or it doesn't meet
the legal criteria.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>   HASMAT--HA Software Mthds & Tools
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:02:58 +0100

>     parties under the terms of this License.

Yes, I agree with that analysis.  The crucial point is that the
GPL and a license to run a software are orthogonal, as stated by
the passage I quoted.  Since running the software is definitely an
"activity other than copying, distribution and modification" it is
"outside its [the GPL's] scope".  And if it's outside the GPL's
scope it can not violate the GPL.

By the way, the fvwm license already violates the GPL by
restricting the right to modify the sources:

  Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
  documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
  provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that
  both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
  supporting documentation

(note the explicit permission to use fvwm - which can be easily
circumvented by deriving a new window manager from fvwm).

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: Larry Gensch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:29:27 -0500 (EST)

[Taken off-list]

As an American, I must say that I am extremely ashamed of GWB's
inability to listen to reason from respected leaders of other
countries--as well as people in his own cabinet--as well as the
countless numbers of people that have been, and still are, protesting
this insane and irresponsible drive toward an unnecessary war.

That being said, I'm afraid that your protest, although being made for
morally impeccable reasons, will be less effective then any of the
other protests that have taken place in the last year or so, since it
will have very little visibility to the general public, who don't know
window managers from store managers.

Your decision, if you decide to go through with it, will be very
unfortunate for the future of FVWM, which is nearing its celebration
of the anniversary of its birth, as it causes doubts about whether
people will even be able to use the program.

I am not a lawyer, and I will leave it to people with more experience
working with the GPL to figure out how your currently stated
decision(s) will affect future versions of FVWM.  I have seen some of
the responses to your message, and it seems that there may be some
basic incompatibilities with the GPL and your desires.  It is because
of any possible damage to FVWM that I would urge you to possibly
rechannel your protest to a means that would be more effective in the
long run.

Again, I must tell you that I truly understand how upset you are about
my country's current actions in the Middle East.  It is my hope that
the war will be quick, and that as many people as possible emerge from
it safely.  I know that my hope is shared by many people around the
world, including people within my own country.

-- 
Larry Gensch                                               [email-masked]
Nashua Languages and Tools Lab (NLTL)      Hewlett-Packard Company, Nashua, NH
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Alex Wallis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 02:45:28 +1030

Please let me apologise in advance for the controversial political
statements contained within this posting, and for any offence that I may
cause to others by the inappropriateness of my comments. As has already
been pointed out in an earlier thread, it really should not be discussed
here in this forum.

>     I do not mean to punish or antagonise anybody, but I am trying

I applaud and admire your strength in having the courage to stand by
your convictions. I have often wondered how many open source software
development projects have been unknowingly contributing to the
persecution, torture, rape, and murder of millions of innocent civilians
by oppressive ruthless despotic regimes, or even secretive terrorist
organisations, but I guess there's no real way to tell is there?

Personally I would also include media organisations as they seem to be
gaining greater benefits from this "unjust" war than anybody. It has
been in their own interests to fan the flames of protest and dissent,
and distort the facts with hypothesis and hyperbole in the guise of
"information", and thereby knowingly participate in the distribution of
propaganda from all aspects of the discussions now taking place. Is
there anything the media empires wont do for a headline?

>     it impossible to ship fvwm as part of Debian and other Linux

And thereby alienate more distributions and further contribute to the
demise of fvwm's popularity.

>     Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc.).

Given the recent advancements in modern warfare technology I don't think
any comparisons with other conflicts can be justified as being "valid". 
In Afghanistan (the most recent) the terrain and tactics were entirely
different, and there was no clear distinctive method of identifying "the
enemy" as they wore civilian clothes and often (and possibly still do)
posed as innocent civilians. 
In Kosovo the practice of ethnic cleansing was a primary motivation for
U.N. intervention. In both conflicts widespread civilian casualties were
the direct result of the actions of the original aggressors, which is
apparently what Saddam also intends by strategically placing as many
military targets as possible behind innocent human shields, and thereby
invoking world wide outrage at the high cost of "collateral damage".

Having said that however, it does nobody any good to expect or theorise
what the outcome will be. Only time will tell, and history will be the
final judge.

>     donate (of course other forms of donations are accepted too).

This may actually be a good idea in peace time as well as in war. A
donation to any charitable organisation is surely welcome always.

>     a very delicate matter.  It will take time to write down a

You may not have as much time as you think to decide this as most
analysts predict a "short war" (whatever that means).

>     option to completely cease contributing to the open source

This would most certainly be a great loss indeed. Your insights and
contributions have been considerable, and I am convinced that fvwm in
particular would not be the outstanding example of the achievements of
co-operative open source software development that it is today, without
the benefit of your wisdom and guidance over the many years of
leadership that you have given freely and generously, without thought of
reward or recompense. Whatever your decision may be, I sincerely wish
you well.

> complaints, suggestions, etc.

Finally, to paraphrase the Buddah, "All life depends on suffering."
Humans have flourished by eating the flesh of animals. Governments have
flourished by consuming the wealth of their populations. One cannot
blame the gun that kills. Nor can one lay blame on the hand that crafted
the weapon. It is the hand that wields the weapon that must be judged.
Not the weapon's creator. These are the very same issues that the
scientists who worked on the now infamous Manhatten Project were facing.
No sane human being would want a war! Would they?

Robert Nation began the development of fvwm while working on a military
project which required certain attributes from the window manager that
were lacking at the time. Does that mean that fvwm's development has
been tainted all this time?

I hope my arguments here, from purely an uninformed user's perspective
have helped, and not confused or clouded the issues confronting you. I
once again, whatever your decision, most sincerely wish you well, now,
and in the future.

Alex
--
Children's talent to endure stems from their ignorance of alternatives.
      -- Maya Angelou, "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings"
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:48:24 -0500

> been pointed out in an earlier thread, it really should not be discussed

The war itself is off-topic, but how it affects licensing isn't.

> I have often wondered how many open source software

I prefer to believe that fvwm (and opensource) contribute to global
peace and understanding.  There is a message about cooperation,
sharing, and helping strangers involved that I think everyone
understands.

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:28:29 +0100

> sharing, and helping strangers involved that I think everyone

You hit the bull's eye, Dan.  I have always been a fervent
advocate of the GPL because I believe in unversal cooperation
instead of competition, and developing open source software was my
way to contribute to that idea.  Now I had to learn that I was in
error regarding the GPL, and that open source software *is* a
political thing.  But that should not affect my basic beliefs.

As I said in some other mail, I think the GPL is incompatible to
the original copyright by Evans & Sutherland and Robert Nation and
I thus was never allowed to impose it on fvwm unmodified.  That
gives us the chance to modify the license we have now.

Tim suggested to make a public plea for peace, similar to the
proclamation we made after the attack on the World Trade Center.
But I believe this is not enough.  I would like to add a statement
about the fair use of fvwm to the license, and obligate *all*
users and developers (including myself) to read it and to make a
donation to aforementioned non-government organisations, no matter
how small the donation might be.

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: Andre Bonhote <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:01:37 +0100

Hi Dominik

On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 11:55:07PM +0100, [email-masked] wrote:
[snip]
>  - in educational institutions and research istitutes

[snip]

Normally I am only reading fvwm-workers, but this time I guess I have
to pipe up.

Dominik, in my opinion you need to find the balance between fighting
your frustration about the war and frustrating other people by
forbidding them to use fvwm2.

All you $DEVELOPERS of fvwm2 did a really great job, providing a
wonderful, stable, customizable window manager and supporting us 08/15
users with helpful words. I don't think I only speak for myself when I
say that you lightened up my life with fvwm2.

Now there's the other side of the medal: fvwm2 is free and so publicly
available. There's a license of whatever sort which restricts the use of
this particular piece of software or parts of it. Therefore, it's likely
that some not-so-nice-fellows use it as well. That is what you want to
avoid by changing the license.

Dominik, think twice!

 - do you really beleive that a guy who is able to kill humans reads
   your license and thinks: "oh, it's illegal, so I will not use it"?
 - on the other hand, all that are affected by your license which do
   not hurt others, they might read the license and feel illegal. Maybe
   they really uninstall fvwm2 and stop using it. Dan would be one of
   them, I suppose.

In my opinion, it is much better to let those who like your code enjoy
it, regardless of who it is, than penalize some groups of which 90% are
unguilty, and 100% of the remaining 10% don't care about what you're
writing.

Please, rethink it.

André   

-- 
Behind every great man, there is a woman -- urging him on.
                -- Harry Mudd, "I, Mudd", stardate 4513.3

---

From: Roland Roberts <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Mar 2003 12:18:23 -0500

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "dv" == dominik vogt <[email-masked]> writes:

    dv> With the next fvwm release, I plan to modify the license on
    dv> the parts of fvwm that I have written:

    dv> Using my code will be allowed under the terms of the GNU
    dv> Public License for:

    dv>  - private use everywhere,
    dv>  - use by non-government organisations that have humanitarian
    dv>    goals or fight against all forms of war,
    dv>  - use by anybody in the countries that do not dispatch
    dv>    military forces against Iraq.
 
    dv> Using fvwm is explicitly forbidden in any country that does
    dv> send military forces against Iraq:

    dv>  - in their public administration and government
    dv>  - in educational institutions and research istitutes
    dv>  - in companies.

I used to use fvwm 1, long ago, and then fvwm2 on my Sparc IPCs.
Eventually I switched to Enlightenment since it came with RedHat and
let me do most of what I had been doing with fvwm2.  With RedHat 8.0,
this was no longer the case, and I went back to fvwm2, using the beta
version to get Gnome session managment.  Additionally, fvwm2 lets me
run a very light-weight session which is useful for some of the
graphics applications I am using.

With this change in licensing, I can no longer use fvwm2 for the
computer in my office since it is a company computer.  It can be
reasonably argued that my "home" computer is also disallowed since I
do consulting work on that computer.  In short, even thought is
requires some work to get fvwm onto my RedHat system, it was worth it.
Now it is about to be forbidden.

As a result, I've switched to KDE and am now trying to figure out how
to get all my old shortcuts, menus, and behavior working.  I'm not
going to try to argue you out of your position, but you need to know
what the effects of your choice are and that's all I'm trying to
convey.  

I will also be dropping off the list soon, there's little point in my
staying since I no longer have any stake or interest in fvwm2.

regards,

roland
- -- 
		       PGP Key ID: 66 BC 3B CD
Roland B. Roberts, PhD                             RL Enterprises
[email-masked]                            6818 Madeline Court
[email-masked]                           Brooklyn, NY 11220

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:32:44 -0500

> staying since I no longer have any stake or interest in fvwm2.

Slow down.
The license hasn't changed, and I predict it won't change.

---

From: "Paul Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Mar 2003 12:54:51 -0500

>> staying since I no longer have any stake or interest in fvwm2.

  de> Slow down.
  de> The license hasn't changed, and I predict it won't change.

I have to agree.  I don't think that the changes in licensing Dominik is
proposing will be accepted by the majority of developers, regardless of
their personal views.  As I'm discussing on another thread, I don't
think they are legal but we should probably get someone like the FSF to
give an opinion.

I hope this doesn't cause Dominik to stop working on FVWM because that
would be an absolutely tremendous blow to the project going forward,
there's no question about that.

In the meantime there is no change in the current licensing of any
release of FVWM, or even of the unreleased code currently in CVS.  The
issue being discussed would only impact, at most, future releases and
future committed code.

---

From: "Paul Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Mar 2003 13:08:46 -0500

%% Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]> writes:

  >> But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which
  >> is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must
  >> be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other
  >> licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every
  >> part regardless of who wrote it.

  dv> Yes, I agree with that analysis.  The crucial point is that the
  dv> GPL and a license to run a software are orthogonal, as stated by
  dv> the passage I quoted.  Since running the software is definitely an
  dv> "activity other than copying, distribution and modification" it is
  dv> "outside its [the GPL's] scope".  And if it's outside the GPL's
  dv> scope it can not violate the GPL.

I don't believe that's true: the GPL requires that the combined work be
released under the GPL, and exactly the GPL.  It does not allow for any
extra terms or conditions to be applied, even if they are not directly
addressed by the GPL.

Also note that people do not have to agree to the GPL, or to your
license.  There is no "click wrap" etc. on FVWM so there is no way for
people to affirmatively agree to the licensing terms: they are required
to do so.

The GPL works because it _ADDS_ freedoms that copyright law would
normally not allow: modification, redistribution, etc.  So, if you don't
agree to the license the FSF doesn't care: that just means you can't do
any of those things.  The only way you can do them is by agreeing to the
license.

Licenses which _REMOVE_ freedoms that copyright law would normally
allow, such as most EULAs etc. and the license you are proposing, _must_
be agreed to in some affirmative way.  Otherwise they can simply not
agree to your license and use the product as allowed by copyright.
Using a product you own for the purposes which it was designed is
definitely not violating a copyright.

  dv> By the way, the fvwm license already violates the GPL by
  dv> restricting the right to modify the sources:

  dv>   Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software
  dv>   and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby
  dv>   granted, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all
  dv>   copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission
  dv>   notice appear in supporting documentation

I don't see any restriction.  You mean because it says the copyright
notice must be present?  That's no problem: the GPL itself makes the
same requirement.

  dv> (note the explicit permission to use fvwm - which can be easily
  dv> circumvented by deriving a new window manager from fvwm).

Perhaps... although the new version would begin with the same
restrictions as the previous one.  Only if the license allowed you to
change the licensing could you do so, even on a derived version.

---

From: "Paul Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Mar 2003 13:13:13 -0500

dv> You hit the bull's eye, Dan.  I have always been a fervent
  dv> advocate of the GPL because I believe in unversal cooperation
  dv> instead of competition, and developing open source software was my
  dv> way to contribute to that idea.  Now I had to learn that I was in
  dv> error regarding the GPL, and that open source software *is* a
  dv> political thing.

I don't get it... it wasn't political before this thread started, was
it?

  dv> As I said in some other mail, I think the GPL is incompatible to
  dv> the original copyright by Evans & Sutherland and Robert Nation and
  dv> I thus was never allowed to impose it on fvwm unmodified.

I don't believe that's true.  I remember when this was done and IIRC we
asked around and got permission to make this change from most everyone
involved.

Anyway, the original license, IIRC, does not conflict with the GPL.  If
you go back to the code as it was before the GPL started to be used then
of course you can change the licensing on that version--if _that's_
allowed, which it might not be either; we'd have to check the license.

  dv> Tim suggested to make a public plea for peace, similar to the
  dv> proclamation we made after the attack on the World Trade Center.
  dv> But I believe this is not enough.  I would like to add a statement
  dv> about the fair use of fvwm to the license, and obligate *all*
  dv> users and developers (including myself) to read it and to make a
  dv> donation to aforementioned non-government organisations, no matter
  dv> how small the donation might be.

Again, this is a violation of the GPL and so can only be imposed if
everyone with copyright interest in the code agrees to change the
license.

---

From: Kingsly John <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 01:39:40 +0530

> there's no question about that.

[I was planning to keep off this volatile thread... but guess I need to work
on my will power.]

I don't think changing the license or Dominik dropping out of FVWM is really
going to make any real difference to the working of the countries around the
world. Lets face it.. the damage has been done .. war has begun.. it's not
going to end because of what we are proposing. 

Instead of disrupting other people's desktops(with a license change) .. or
disrupting fvwm development (if dominik drops out).. we could have an
Anti-war message/list of charities that people could make donations to help
victims of war.(something akin to vim and helping children in uganda)(set it
up as a splash on first run and as a menu option in the themes that are
shipped with/by fvwm.)

This would mean.. that more work the fvwm team puts in to improve fvwm.. more
people that would use it.. and a higher probability of  people that would
make a donation.(I don't think it's right to only target governments and
research institutes.. when most of the countries in the world are
democracies.. people that voted for or did not vote for a government that
goes to war .. are just as responsible for war.)

In case no one has noticed.. in all the mails/opinions in this thread.. no
one has tried to justify the war.. and I think most would agree that this
would be a better and more positive approach than asking warmongers to pay
up.(chances are most of them will switch to another $WM than make the
donation that Dominik proposes. End result... the victims of war continue to
suffer.)

I'll end with something I got in my mail today (SF.net's newsletter)

<quote>
Finally, in this time of global political uncertainty, it is good to be
reminded that Open Source software has no boundaries.   The work you do
on your Open Source project benefits countless individuals and nations
in every corner of the globe.   Regardless of location, faith, or race,
developers are collaborating together to create software that will not
only benefit themselves, but all of humanity. At a time when it's hard
to see something positive in the news, remember in our own way, the
Open Source community is making a difference.
</quote>

Kingsly

PS: Dominik, I understand that the decisions you are trying to make are not
easy and very few people have it in them to even contemplate such a
thing.(evident from the way life goes on as "normal" all around the world).
I wish you all success and happiness in whatever path you choose to take!

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:31:27 +0100

On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 01:08:46PM -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
> released under the GPL, and exactly the GPL.

As I quoted above, it touches only what is in the scope of the
GPL.  It does *not* restrict adding licenses for what is *outside*
of its scope.

> It does not allow for any

I disagree.  If this was the case, it would for example forbid you
to deny your children access to a software under GPL that you
think is not appropriate for them.

> definitely not violating a copyright.

My point of view is:  the GPL does not grant anybody the right to
*run* the software.  By doing so, you break the law.  So, I am
*adding* the right to run the software.  In case of fvwm, the
original copyright notice grants the right to run fvwm, given that
the permission statement is kept intact in the sources.

> notice must be present?  That's no problem: the GPL itself makes the

The GPL allows to make *any* modification to the *sources*,
implicitly including removing the copyright statement.  That does
not change the copyright or the license of course, and this does
not allow to remove the text of the license from *non-source*
files, such as the license file.  The E&S license *forbids* to
remove the license statement from the *sources*.

Ergo, with the E&S license notice plus the GPL it is illegal to
distribute the fvwm sources.

> change the licensing could you do so, even on a derived version.

It does allow to change the licensing:

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: "Paul Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Mar 2003 00:27:56 -0500

%% [email-masked] writes:

  >> >> part regardless of who wrote it.

  dv> As I quoted above, it touches only what is in the scope of the
  dv> GPL.  It does *not* restrict adding licenses for what is *outside*
  dv> of its scope.

I don't agree.  The GPL explicitly says that the code must be released
under the GPL, full stop.  There is no exception that allows you to add
any extra terms or conditions as long as they don't conflict with the
terms and conditions in the GPL... in fact the GPL specifically forbids
"sublicensing".

The license also _explicitly_ says that "The act of running the Program
is not restricted".

So you cannot add a restriction on running the program that does not
directly contradict the terms of the GPL, and you must release the
derivative under the terms of the GPL.

  >> It does not allow for any extra terms or conditions to be applied,
  >> even if they are not directly addressed by the GPL.

  dv> I disagree.  If this was the case, it would for example forbid you
  dv> to deny your children access to a software under GPL that you
  dv> think is not appropriate for them.

No.  The GPL only talks about your obligations if you distribute the
code.  Basically it says that (to use your example) if you give your
children a GPL'd program you have to make available to them the source
code to that as well.

Nowhere does it require you to give it to them in the first place.

Anyway, children are minors and so do not have all the rights and
privileges of adults.

  >> allow, such as most EULAs etc. and the license you are proposing,
  >> _must_ be agreed to in some affirmative way.  Otherwise they can
  >> simply not agree to your license and use the product as allowed by
  >> copyright.  Using a product you own for the purposes which it was
  >> designed is definitely not violating a copyright.

  dv> My point of view is: the GPL does not grant anybody the right to
  dv> *run* the software.  By doing so, you break the law.

Copyright covers only certain activities: modification, redistribution,
_public_ performances, translation to another language, etc.

Consider: when you buy a book at the store you do not have to have a
special license to _read_ that book; you won't find any language in any
book that explicitly gives you that right.  Similarly, if you buy a CD
you don't need a license to allow you to listen to it.

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:07:09 +0100

> terms and conditions in the GPL... in fact the GPL specifically forbids

It's not sublicensing.  The GPL is not at all affected by certain
types of license.  The GPL states *explicitly* that it only
licenses copying, modifying and distributing the software, nothing
else.  Licensing for any other action is not covered and thus the
license is determined by the laws for them.

> The license also _explicitly_ says that "The act of running the Program

That statement is more or less devoid of meaning.  It just says
that the GPL does not limit the right to run the software, but it
neither *gives* you that right.  It must come from somewhere else.

> derivative under the terms of the GPL.

I think that is wrong.  *If* I can not limit the right to run a
software, it is not because of the GPL but because of laws.

[snip]
 
> you don't need a license to allow you to listen to it.

But we are not talking about buying or selling a product.  If we
sold fvwm, then the act of selling would imply the right for the
buyer to use what she bought.  But we don't sell fvwm and thus the
legal framework of the selling/buying transaction do not apply.

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: "Paul Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Mar 2003 00:43:27 -0500

I do not agree with your interpretations of the GPL WRT the legality of
restricting use, but since we appear to have come down to "you're wrong"
vs. "no you're wrong", it doesn't seem productive to continue with that :)

  >> Copyright covers only certain activities: modification,
  >> redistribution, _public_ performances, translation to another
  >> language, etc.
  >> 
  >> Consider: when you buy a book at the store you do not have to have
  >> a special license to _read_ that book; you won't find any language
  >> in any book that explicitly gives you that right.  Similarly, if
  >> you buy a CD you don't need a license to allow you to listen to it.

  dv> But we are not talking about buying or selling a product.  If we
  dv> sold fvwm, then the act of selling would imply the right for the
  dv> buyer to use what she bought.  But we don't sell fvwm and thus the
  dv> legal framework of the selling/buying transaction do not apply.

Copyright has nothing to do with buying and selling: that is contract
law.  Copyright is in effect regardless of whether or not you paid
anything for the work.

Library books are still copyright, even though you didn't pay for them.
Books given as birthday presents, or CDs given away for promotion, are
still copyright even though they were free.  If you pick up a magazine
lying on the street, copyright does not prevent you from reading that
magazine.