Menu
▾
▴
Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license
|
From: Barry <we...@i1...> - 2005-09-17 01:05:36
|
Thomas E Dukes wrote: >Hello all!, > >This thread is getting old. > >We have all enjoyed virtualmin _FREE_ for a long time!! If Joe wants to >make a dollar for his hard work, _GREAT_!! He deserves it! > > Me too! I agree he and they (Jamie too!) deserve it! >I have been very greatful for what he has done. > Me too! >I probably will never >purchase the "Professional" version. > I might someday, or at least put in a good word, but they haven't discussed licensing terms yet. >Many may and that's your prerogative >just as it is mine not to. I don't have the need. I just have a few >virtual domains that I own and operate. Joe has promised all the features >of the "Professional" version in the _FREE_ Virtualmin but delayed, so >what's the beef? > > The beef, in a nutshell, is that doing so appears to be an unprecedented interpretation of the GPL. I am willing to stand 100% corrected and say so publicly if someone shows where this is an accepted interpretation of the GPL by the fsf, and the gpl defense community as a whole. >My system operates on CentOS a derivative of RedHat Enterprise Linux. I am >greatful RedHat makes their source rpms publicly avaliable as I cannot >afford to pay for the support of their GPL'd product. > > They do so as a convenience really - but the source code to everything is available under one open license or another, and is available. You *could* build it all form the source code itf you wanted to. That this is a messy operation is precisely what caused distros to arise in the first place, and people were willing to pay for the convenience of the same features they could get at more trouble. The point is, the RPMS that redhat gets some people to pay for are precisely available from other places in source code version. If Vmin was to be available in a more convenient form for a charge, with the same feature set, or maybe a cooler skin was available for a price, or better service, then that would be something else. >Without people such as Joe and RedHat, we'd all be bowing to Bill!!!! > > I use redhat too (or at least Fedora) but they have had to confront these same issues, as has every open source, and especially GPL project eventually. >'nuff said! > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: web...@li... >>[mailto:web...@li...] On Behalf >>Of Joe Cooper >>Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 7:05 PM >>To: web...@li... >>Subject: Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license >> >>Hi Barry and all, >> >>I'm going to try this again, and hopefully, it will put this >>thing to bed before the rest of the list gets tired of our >>legal ranting. >> >>Barry, the crux of your argument is that we, the copyright >>holders, cannot make a commercial variant of something that >>we have previously released under the GPL and that >>dual-licensing with the GPL and a GPL-incompatible license is >>not legally supportable. You've stated this in dozens of >>different ways, but it all comes down to whether we have a >>legal right to do so. As I mentioned before, this is a very >>common misconception about the GPL. So, let's dispel this >>myth first with a simple question: >> >>Who will sue the copyright holder for not following the >>letter of the license under which they have released their code? >> >>A copyright infringement lawsuit would have to be brought in >>order for any "legal mess" to occur, which is what you >>believe you're helping us avoid with this discussion. >> >>So, who will bring this lawsuit? You? The FSF? Virtualmin, Inc.? >> >>Of these three options, only one has a legal leg to stand on, >>and I'll give you three guesses as to which one it is. The >>first two guesses don't count. >> >>It ought to be obvious from this simple question, and the >>obvious answer, that there can be no such thing as a license >>that applies to the copyright holder (a license has to be >>enforceable under the law, and thus there has to be someone >>with greater rights than the license grants). So, there goes >>the argument that we have to license every line of code we >>write for the rest of our lives under the GPL (whether it is >>part of Virtualmin or not). We simply don't, and no amount >>of arguing that we do is going to change the legal facts. >>I'm just not going to argue that point any further. If you >>still don't believe me, I'm sorry, there's nothing more I'm >>willing to say on the matter. Take it up with the FSF or an >>attorney, if you like. If you believe that we have the legal >>copyright necessary to license it to others under the GPL >>*despite starting out with a different license*, then you >>must believe we also have the legal rights necessary to >>license it under other terms. >> >>On to the other issues you've raised that are new to the >>discussion and worth covering: >> >> >>If you believe you have contributed code to Virtualmin that you would >>rather we not include, say the word and show me the code. >>Let's not be >>wishy-washy, and say "it may be that others, or even >>I"...Either you did >>or you didn't. I don't believe anyone has been misled into >>contributing >>code to Virtualmin without awareness that there had been a non-GPL >>version in the past and there would be a non-GPL version in >>the future. >> But if there is a piece of code that fits that description, >>point it >>out. There's no time like the present. I suspect you greatly >>over-estimate the amount of non-Jamie-authored code in any version of >>Virtualmin. >> >> >>OpenCountry has nothing to do with Virtualmin, Inc. or Virtualmin >>Professional. Virtualmin, Inc. is a Texas Corporation with two >>shareholders: Jamie Cameron and me. OpenCountry are a nice bunch of >>folks who have sponsored Webmin development, and I applaud them for >>their involvement. There is no need to pester them about >>licensing of >>Virtualmin...they'll have no clue what you're talking about. >> >> >>Anyway, the long and short of this issue is that a copyright >>holder is >>never subject to the license under which they distribute >>their own code, >>even if that license is the GPL. I'm out of ways to explain >>this, and >>until you come to understand this fact, we simply aren't >>going to end up >>talking about the same problem. >> >>If you don't want to take my word for it, take it up with anyone you >>like. The FSF won't be particularly happy to hear from you, but they >>might be willing to answer your questions (I am a core developer on >>another large Open Source project that approached the FSF >>about turning >>the project into a GNU project, and now I know their approach >>and when >>they have an interest in a project, and I can assure you they >>don't care >>one whit about Virtualmin). >> >>If you'd like to keep discussing it, let's make it private, as this >>isn't really relevant to Webmin. I just posted the >>announcement here as >>I know there are quite a few folks here who in the past had shown an >>interest in the ransom or GPL version of Virtualmin. Just >>thought I'd >>fill them in on what we've been working on, and I really >>didn't intend >>to start a firestorm about licensing. >> >>Regards, >>Joe >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------- >>SF.Net email is sponsored by: >>Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App >>Server. Download >>it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own >>Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php >>- >>Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at >>web...@li... >>To remove yourself from this list, go to >>http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list >> >> >> > > > > >------------------------------------------------------- >SF.Net email is sponsored by: >Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download >it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own >Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php >- >Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li... >To remove yourself from this list, go to >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list > > > > |
