Discussion Re: Manifesto of Non-Interference
Created this thread to discuss:
http://groups.drupal.org/node/12631
Why won't anyone else sign? What is missing / confusing / distasteful about it?
I will take the opportunity to say that i realize that upholding it in court would be difficult if not impossible, but it is mostly symbolic. Also, it's not truly effective until every single copyrigth holder of Drupal signs it. (And no one knows who they are; potentially thousands.)
But what's wrong with a gesture of "Hey, you can do your thing, and I won't bother you. Go ahead and make money; I won't try to take it" ?
Please, no discussion here of the value / freeness / legal standing of the GPL. Drupal is licensed under the GPL, and any program that includes GPL code must be licensed under the GPL. (Yes, I have engaged in such discussions elsewhere. I'm done with that. For now.)
This is not about the GPL. This is about the ambiguous legal definition of alleged 'derivative works' which contain no GPL code.
Initial comment regarding
Initial comment regarding this is here:
http://groups.drupal.org/node/12624#comment-40569
I've responded briefly to Bill on the subject, but want to hear from others who support or oppose my intent.
Or if you want to take it a
Or if you want to take it a little less seriously, you can comment on the fact that my statement can be referenced with the acronym MONI which is indeed pronounced like 'MONEY.' (No I didn't plan that.)
Irrelevant?
Perhaps no one is signing it because no one else sees a reason to? No one here wants to sue anyone; really, that's time consuming and expensive and a PITA. No one else is trying to bring lawsuits into it.
Perhaps no one is signing it because most people who write code and give it away under a "share and share alike" license don't actually like the idea of poking holes in the "Share alike" part?
Perhaps no one is signing because they understand that a net-pact is really useless when dealing with the law, and that several weeks worth of back and forth with a lawyer is not to be dismissed so lightly?
Or some combination of the above. :-)
--Larry Garfield
dismissed?
Why do you think this is dismissive of the lawyers advice? The manifesto does not contradict the FAQ. It's simply a voluntary giving up of rights which the FAQ (questionably) claims you might have.
You missed to say that
You missed to say that people may not understand this and therefore not sign.
I don't think you're adding
I don't think you're adding any clarity to what 'we the undersigned' consider derivative works/'works based upon [our work]' and which are not. You don't want to discuss the value of the GPL, but saying I won't sue anyone that violates the license I've released my code, defangs the GPL too much.
Personally, I support the FSF's general position that compliance is more important than court/monetary victory. But a threat to sue is still sometimes necessary to ensure compliance.
The usual response of 'if you don't like the license, then go find your own code' applies here.
Not about "like"
You're still missing the point. I like the license. A lot. I don't like anyone else trying to force me to use a particular license for my own 100% original code.
I'm not trying to 'defang' the GPL, though the use of the metaphor is it's own comment. I'm trying to defang 'Derivative Works' definitions, which is a matter of copyright law in any given jurisdiction, and has nothing to do with the GPL.