jGnucashlib and GPL notices

[Neil Williams]

On Sunday 16 October 2005 8:28 pm, Christian Stimming wrote:
> > (I'm totally sure about the licensing conditions), and that part happens
> > to be the XML-reading part including the object model.
>
> the parenthesed sentence of course should have read "I'm *not* totally sure
> about the exact licensing conditions"...
>
> Christian

There was a lot of confusion here, Christian and Marcus both interpreted the 
GPL issues one way, but I had a different problem. My issue was not WHERE the 
source had come from but HOW it was being labelled and distributed. Suffice 
to say that the tarball needed correcting, the GPL itself was missing, some 
files contained old licence notes incompatible with the GPL and the source 
code itself was labelled such as to make it seem read-only - in the sense 
that Microsoft thinks of open source, you can read the code but don't dare 
change it. Clearly, giving the impression that the code is read-only in the 
sense that modification is prohibited is not compatible with the GPL licence 
or the term "free software". The *intention* was that the code was for a 
program that could only read gnucash files, not write them, i.e. a file 
reader, not a read only file. (Plus the tarball contained all the CVS/ 
directories which is a pain but not an issue.) 

It may appear semantics to some, but if the battle against software patents 
has shown anything, it is that semantics is the basis of law and policy. An 
immense amount of time and effort (including my own) went into battling 
against the EPO/UKPO definition of "technical contribution" that could / 
should have gone into new code. If that fight had failed, there would have 
been a dire shortage of new code in the longer term. The fight is not yet 
over but a significant step was made.

I'm painfully aware (from other projects) that if the GPL is not seen to be in 
force, it may not be in force at all. This situation gets even worse when 
there is only a single copyright holder / developer because it leaves room 
for the project to be made proprietary (if the GPL was never valid for that 
code). Simply tagging a project "GPL" in a web site listing (like SF) is 
insufficient - the GPL requires that it is included in the distributed code, 
it is also highly recommended that all individual source files contain a GPL 
notice and that no file contains any licence text that would conflict with 
the GPL itself. As the GPL was not being followed on any of these counts, it 
could be deemed not to be enforceable at all which makes the code non-free. 
It is unwise to break the licence (through neglect or omission) and expect 
protection from that same licence.

After a lengthy discussion of misunderstandings, Marcus has said he'll have a 
new tarball which I hope will resolve these issues. Only then would I be 
happy to consider it "free software".

-- 

Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.gnucash.org/pipermail/gnucash-devel/attachments/20051019/a1f85957/attachment.bin