Re: [Notion-devel] what we're waiting for

[kevin g. <kev...@gm...>]

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:50 PM, M Rawash <mr...@gm...> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 14:30 -0400, Marc Hartstein wrote:
>> Excerpts from M Rawash's message of Mon Apr 12 11:25:54 -0400 2010:
>> > - fork Ion and change the license (possibly to GPL), this will leave us
>> > vulnerable to Tuomo's hostility (assuming he is indeed hostile), since
>> > it's basically 'illegal' in light of Tuomo's additional terms (which,
>> > according to Tuomo, "take precedence over the LGPL").
>>
>> It seems a fork-and-rename is consistent with the intent, if not the
>> terms, of the modified LGPL.
>
> intent, maybe, terms, not so sure; if so, i believe Tuomo
> "unintentionally" made it impossible to fork Ion under a different
> license, that's why we're still in need of a clarification on his part,
> and if that indeed was his intention, we have to consider other options.
>
>> It would seem a release under a modified LGPL with the rider that the
>> project or its forks may not be renamed to Ion, ion3, or anything which
>> would associate it with the Ion project, and may not contain anything
>> which refers users to the Ion project or Tuomo Valkonen for support, and
>> that this project and its forks may not change to any license which does
>> not contain, or invalidates, this rider would be consistent with the
>> goal of the license.
>>
>> IANAL, but shouldn't this be doable in a reasonably straightforward way?
>> The point of the name change is that it and not referring back to ion is
>> what's required by the license.
>>
>> Yes, it wouldn't be "pure GPL", but if the only additional restriction
>> is "can't rename this to Ion or ask Tuomo for tech support, must
>> preserve this restriction", is that going to relegate it to
>> scary/non-free? It's not restricting a distro from doing anything they'd
>> actually do anyway [not like the current ion license].
>
>
> here's the part that, i believe, makes this scenario un-doable:
> "In the text of sections 0-2, 4-12, and 14-16 of the LGPL, "this
> License" is to be understood to refer to the LGPL __extended with these
> terms__ and, where applicable, possible similar terms related to the
> names of other works forming a whole. Sections 3 and 13 of the LGPL are
> void. Where contradictory, these additional terms take precedence over
> the LGPL."
>
> this means that every single reference to "this License" in Tuomo's code
> points to Tuomo's terms (in addition to the LGPL), which makes it
> 'illegal' for us to replace the license with, say, GPL or something
> similar.
>
> this, of course, is based on my own interpretation of the above text,
> and is not necessarily correct, so please tell us if you see it
> differently.

I *think* he's saying that we could perhaps propose such terms to
Tuomo and have some chance of him agreeing to it.  Personally I'm a
bit worried that he'll refuse any compromise we try, but I'd be
overjoyed to be proven wrong.

-Kevin Granade

>
> regards,
> M Rawash
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Notion-devel mailing list
> Not...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/notion-devel
>