[JDEV] Re: theoretic-smtp, Ransom License, Jabber and GPL incompatibility

[James Michael DuPont]

[note: names have been added to add clarity to the quotes]
> > --Michael DuPont <mdupont777 at yahoo.com> wrote :
> >     Also, adam has been pushing to get jabber into DotGNU, 
> >     project and I have not wanted to make a big deal about it, but
> >     jabber is now an officially endorsed project.

>-- Richard Stallman wrote:
> > Officially endorsed by whom, how?
> > I think that DotGNU has endorsed use of the Jabber protocol,
> > but I don't think that means endorsing any specific software.

--Adam Theo <theo at theoretic.com> wrote:
> Yes, this is correct, and something I pointed out in my previous
> email.  I have always enforced the notion that Jabber is *only* the 
> protocol,like SMTP and HTTP. There is no codebase which is Jabber, 
> only implimentations of Jabber. 

I was misled by the statements from the dotgnu mailling list and
webpage that I quoted below. 
The talk was of reusing GPLed and a compatible JOSLed code and the
Protocol. Not of *just* the protocal. Also of using code that "could
become" GPL that can only be a reference to the Ransom license.

As I said before I am not trying to cause problems here,
but I have to defend my position.

Jabber is a protocol, yes.

But a protocol without an free implementation, it is of very *little*
value, at most a motivation to create one, but there would be no basis
for supporting the protocoll from the DotGNu project yet.

The DOTGNU project has endorsed just the protocol? Not the code:

In an older version of the dotgnu webpage (google cache):
http://www.google.de/search?q=cache:swIj312NAJAC:www.gnu.org/projects/dotgnu/proposals/active.html+dotgnu-jabber&hl=de&ie=UTF-8
     >The DotGNU-Jabber Integration Project aims to help DotGNU 
     >catch up to 
     >Microsoft by using Jabber's existing code and user base. 
     >Note the existing code base.
     >It has existing servers, modules, and clients that are, or could 
   
     >become, GPL'ed. 
That "COULD become" is a reference to the Ransom license, which after a
certain amount of donatations will become free. 
The problem is that until it becomes free it is completly incompatible 
to the GPL and the code cannot be used in any GPLed projects directly,
and the service only for a limited time. 

In the offical statement from
http://subscribe.dotgnu.org/pipermail/announce/2002-May/000004.html
    >All existing Jabber technology which is Free Software with
    >licensing that is compatible with the GNU General Public
    >License is acceptable for use in DotGNU.  Some examples of
    >acceptable Free Software licenses are the GNU General Public
    >License (GNU GPL), the GNU Lesser General Public License
    >(GNU LGPL), or the ( JOSL || GNU GPL ) disjunctive licensing
    >used in recent versions of the JOSS Jabber Server.
No mention of the ransom license which I cannot use in a free software
project. All of these announcements go back to the idea of using the
source code. If that is not correct than the dotgnu webpage is
misleading.

The jabberstudio server contains a CVS server that has GPL and JOSL
code. That is why I went to the jabbercentral.org and downloaded
the entire source code from cvs to review it.

Then I noticed that they were hosting "Ransomed" code from Adam which 
is hosted in violation of his own license. Also I am then obligated to
delete the code from my server after one month. As we all aggreed, this
is not appropiate.

I dont have a problem with the Ransom license or his attempts to make
money, but please don't try and piggyback your work onto the DOTGNU
project, because it is incompatible.

Adam has been pushing the jabber on the DotGNU mailling list,
I would have never supported it if I knew that there was plan on
supporting "ransomed" code.

If you want to host that source code, you will have to pay for it out
of your own pocket, or
make a license clause that allows for copying of the code for CVS and
disk usage. You cannot obligate the users to scan thier drives for
ransomed code that has to be deleted after 30 days.

If you have to violate the license to have the source hosted, then you
are just contradicting your own license and making the entire license
invalid IMHO, but of course IANAL! 

What good it to free software projects, most projects run longer than
30 days, and I know that I work bit by bit on different parts, the time
I would need to evaluate the software would not be worth it, because I
would have to delete it as soon as I found out anything. Or be forced
to violate the license, both unacceptable.

As I said, I think Adam has some good ideas and I did not want to make
any big isssue out of this, but it seems that I am not the only one who
thinks there is an issue.

best regards and happy hacking,

mike

=====
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com