[Dotgnu-sc] Re: [CoreTeam]Jabber

[Norbert Bollow]

(Catching up on old email)

As far as I can see from this thread, the confusion around this
issue may not have been fully cleared up yet, so I'll try to
clarify.

JOSS, the most popular implementation of the Jabber protocols,
has always been Free Software.  The early releases were under
GPL.  Later releases used a different license (JOSL) which is
still a Free Software license but not GPL-compatible.  I told
them that I'd support the idea of DotGNU using and endorsing
the Jabber protocols if there was an implementation available
in Free Software with GPL-compatible licensing.  Because of
this, the licensing of JOSS has been changed so that now the
recent versions of JOSS have (JOSL || GNU GPL) disjunctive
licensing which is obviously GPL-compatible.

Adam has been a big help in communicating to the JOSS people
that GPL-incompatible licensing is a serious practical problem.

It is true that Adam is also interested in non-free "ransom"
licenses; that however has nothing whatsoever to do with JOSS.

Why does James Michael DuPont have to always mix things up?

Greetings, Norbert.

> X-Authentication-Warning: santafe.santafe.edu: rms set sender to 
> address@hidden using -f
> From: Richard Stallman <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden
> Reply-to: address@hidden
> Sender: address@hidden
> X-Subscribed-Address: address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:41:17 -0600 (MDT)
> X-UIDL: 17ce1b18bba0a10abb1cfad880a8865a
> 
>     i.e. if Jabber has something that is compatible with the GPL,
>     we will use it.  Otherwise we won't.  I don't think that the
>     announcement is misleading.
> 
> I misunderstood the announcement--I thought it was a real and
> unconditional decision, that DotGNU will use Jabber.  Since I
> misunderstood it, I think others may misunderstand it.
> 
> You seem to be saying, now, that this is only a conditional decision:
> DotGNU *may* use Jabber, if a free implementation materializes.
> If so, it should be presented as a possibility, not as a decision.
> 
> Barry wrote:
> 
>       This happened when they decided to provide the code
>     to JOSS under a disjunctive license choice.  Now, you can choose whether
>     the GNU GPL or the JOSL (Jabber Open Source License) applies to you when
>     using the code.
> 
> If it is really under the GPL, then this does not have to be a
> conditional decision.  It could be stated as a final decision--right?
> 
> However, DuPont says that it contains some code under the non-free
> "Ransom" license.  It is important to check that.  Would one of you
> please undertake to check this?  I have included his mail below.
> 
> One way or another, this should not be stated as a conditional
> decision.  It should clearly be either a final decision or a tentative
> suggestion.  Depending on the real license status of JOSS, we should
> say either "We are using Jabber, no doubt about it" or "We might
> perhaps use Jabber some day, if it is free software".
> 
> 
> Here are DuPont's messages.  They are not very coherent, and I won't
> assume he understands the situation correctly, but if the problem he
> points at is real then we must not overlook it.  The Ransom license is
> definitely not a free software license, so if JOSS includes or depends
> on code that is under that license, we can't use it.
> 
> 
> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 15:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
> From: James Michael DuPont <address@hidden>
> Subject: theoretic-smtp, Ransom License, Jabber and GPL incompatibility
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: address@hidden
> In-Reply-To: <address@hidden>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Length: 6610
> 
> --- David Waite <address@hidden> wrote:
> > James Michael DuPont wrote:
> > 
> > >Also there is some software with a crazy license on it,
> > >a "ransom" license? I thought jabber is free software? I dont want
> > any
> > >ransom software on my machine, why is in CVS if it cannot be used?
> > >  
> > >
> > Huh? Elaborate please.
> I am talking about Adam Theos Ransom License on the theoretic-smtp
> jabber gateway.
> 
> I find it amusing and annoying on the positive side,  Even creative.
> 
> On the negative side I feel violated having seen this source code, now
> how can I implement the same under a GPL without getting into a nasty
> conflict? Why should I get source code out of CVS that I have to
> delete?
> I just did a "co ." to get all the branches.
> 
> QUOTE "3 Once the evaluation period ends, you agree to either
> purchase a registered copy of the software at usd$5.00, or immediately
> stop any further use, copying and modification of the software and any
> modifications and to destroy all such copies or modifications."
> 
> I mean come on! What type of BS is that? Sure Adam is only 21 years
> old,   but it is a bit silly.
> 
> I have written my questions to address@hidden before, and have
> gotten no statement from him. The point is, that it is ok, I would say
> to put it on his own web server, but what is it doing on the jabber
> server? 
> Do you have to delete the source code from your server after 30 day?
> 
> There is not anything really special about this source code, and
> http://www.jabberstudio.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/theoretic-smtp/jabber.pl?rev=1.6&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
> is missing any license statement.
> 
> Also , how can I contribute to jabber if we are not all playing on the
> same level playing ground? 
> 
> 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.
> 
> But it is strange that I cannot even use his contribution as part of a
> GNU software,
> the license is totally unacceptable for a free software project and
> represents an inpurity that has to be removed.
> 
> Dont take me as being negative,
> I think that he should be able to license his ideas and software as
> he likes, but not mixing it up with free software. I dont want anything
> to do wiht this ransom license for my software that is under GPL.
> 
> If you feel that this is good, then collect the money,
> pay him off, and remove the license. Otherwise you will just scare
> people off.
> 
> Best Regards,
> James Michael DuPont
> 
> TWO SNIPPETS FOLLOW :
> [1] theoretic-smtp/README
> [2] theoretic-smtp/LICENSE
> 
> -------------------------SNIP-------------------------
> [1]http://www.jabberstudio.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/theoretic-smtp/README?rev=1.4&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
> -------------------------SNIP-------------------------
> ### LICENSE
> You may download, use, and redistribute the source code at no
> cost. However, you may not modify and redistribute, or incorporate
> this source code into other projects. That is because the source code
> is not yet Open Source or Free Software. It is published under a
> "Ransom License", which means the rights to the source code remain
> restricted until a set amount of money is collected or a set date
> passes, at which point the code is freed. You can read the particular
> Ransom License used, "Theoretic's Simple Ransom License v0.9", in the
> LICENSE file found packaged with the SMTP-T program or from its
> website [http://www.theoretic.com/?JabberSMTP]. And you can help Open
> Source JabberSMTP by contributing to its Ransom amount
> [http://www.theoretic.com/?JabberSMTP/Ransom]. To find out more
> information about the Ransom Model, visit the Ransom website
> [http://www.theoretic.com/?Ransom].
> -------------------------SNIP-------------------------
> 
> 
> -------------------------SNIP-------------------------
> [2]http://www.jabberstudio.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/theoretic-smtp/LICENSE?rev=1.2&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
> -------------------------SNIP-------------------------
> ######### THEORETIC'S SIMPLE RANSOM LICENSE ##########
> Version 1.1
> 
> Copyright 2001 Adam Theo
> 
> This Simple Ransom License covers all copyrighted material that say
> they are covered under the terms and conditions of the "Simple Ransom
> License".
> 
> Use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are
> permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
>       1 You may use, copy, or modify the software at no cost for an
> evaluation period of up to 31 days, beginning when you first install
> the software on one or more computers, in order to determine whether
> the product meets your needs before purchasing it.
>       2 You may use, copy or modify the source code or binary form
> for your internal use only. No redistribution is allowed. This applies
> for both evaluation and registered copies.
>       3 Once the evaluation period ends, you agree to either
> purchase a registered copy of the software at usd$5.00, or immediately
> stop any further use, copying and modification of the software and any
> modifications and to destroy all such copies or modifications.
>       You should make payments through PayPal
> (http://www.paypal.com), sending to 'address@hidden', although
> I may accept other payment methods if you talk to me about it.
>       4 By registering the copy to you, the copyright holder is
> obligated to count your payment towards the Ransom Amount of
> usd$100.00. When the full Ransom Amount has been collected, the source
> code will be automatically re-licensed under the JOSL, included
> below.
>       Details and other information on this Ransom model can be
> found at http://www.theoretic.com/ransom, or from the
> address@hidden mailing list.
> 
> 
> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
> "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
> LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
> A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR
> CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
> EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
> PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
> PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
> LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
> NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
> SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
> -------------------------SNIP-------------------------
> 
> =====
> James Michael DuPont
> http://introspector.sourceforge.net/
> 
> 
> 
> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
> From: James Michael DuPont <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [JDEV] Re: theoretic-smtp, Ransom License, Jabber and GPL 
> incompatibility
> To: address@hidden, address@hidden
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> In-Reply-To: <address@hidden>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Length: 4948
> 
> [note: names have been added to add clarity to the quotes]
> > > --Michael DuPont <address@hidden> 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 <address@hidden> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CoreTeam mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://subscribe.dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/coreteam
>