Conservancy’s First Blog Post

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/10/04/first-conservancy-post.html

[ Crossposted
from Conservancy’s
blog
. ]

As can be seen in
today’s
announcement
, today is my first day as full-time Executive Director
at the Software Freedom Conservancy. For four years, I have worked
part-time on nights, weekends, and lunch times to keep Conservancy
running and to implement and administer
the services
that Conservancy provides to
its member
projects
. It’s actual quite a relief to now have full-time
attention available to carry out this important work.

From the start, one of my goals with Conservancy has been to run the
non-profit organization as transparently as possible. At times, I’ve
found that when time is limited, keeping the public informed about all
your work is often the first item to fall too far down on the action
item list. Now that Conservancy is my primary, daily focus, I hope to
increase its transparency as much as possible.

Specifically, I plan to keep
a regular blog about activities
of the Conservancy
. I’ve found that a public blog is a particular
convenient way to report to the public in a non-onerous way about the
activities of an organization. Indeed, we usually ask those developers
whose work is funded through Conservancy to keep a blog about their
activities, so that the project’s community and the public at large can
get regular updates about the work. I should hold myself to no less a
standard!

I encourage everyone to subscribe to the
full Conservancy site
RSS feed
, where you’ll receive both news items and blog posts from
the Conservancy. There are also separate feeds available
for just news
and just blog posts.
Also, if you’re a subscriber to
my personal blog, I will
cross-post these blog posts there, although my posts on Conservancy’s
blog will certainly be a proper subset of my entire personal blog.

Conservancy’s First Blog Post

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/10/04/first-conservancy-post.html

[ Crossposted
from Conservancy’s
blog
. ]

As can be seen in
today’s
announcement
, today is my first day as full-time Executive Director
at the Software Freedom Conservancy. For four years, I have worked
part-time on nights, weekends, and lunch times to keep Conservancy
running and to implement and administer
the services
that Conservancy provides to
its member
projects
. It’s actual quite a relief to now have full-time
attention available to carry out this important work.

From the start, one of my goals with Conservancy has been to run the
non-profit organization as transparently as possible. At times, I’ve
found that when time is limited, keeping the public informed about all
your work is often the first item to fall too far down on the action
item list. Now that Conservancy is my primary, daily focus, I hope to
increase its transparency as much as possible.

Specifically, I plan to keep
a regular blog about activities
of the Conservancy
. I’ve found that a public blog is a particular
convenient way to report to the public in a non-onerous way about the
activities of an organization. Indeed, we usually ask those developers
whose work is funded through Conservancy to keep a blog about their
activities, so that the project’s community and the public at large can
get regular updates about the work. I should hold myself to no less a
standard!

I encourage everyone to subscribe to the
full Conservancy site
RSS feed
, where you’ll receive both news items and blog posts from
the Conservancy. There are also separate feeds available
for just news
and just blog posts.
Also, if you’re a subscriber to
my personal blog, I will
cross-post these blog posts there, although my posts on Conservancy’s
blog will certainly be a proper subset of my entire personal blog.

systemd for Administrators, Part III

Post Syndicated from Lennart Poettering original https://0pointer.net/blog/projects/systemd-for-admins-3.html

Here’s the third installment of my ongoing
series about
systemd
for administrators
.

How Do I Convert A SysV Init Script Into A systemd Service File?

Traditionally, Unix and Linux services (daemons) are started
via SysV init scripts. These are Bourne Shell scripts, usually
residing in a directory such as /etc/rc.d/init.d/ which when
called with one of a few standardized arguments (verbs) such as
start, stop or restart controls,
i.e. starts, stops or restarts the service in question. For starts
this usually involves invoking the daemon binary, which then forks a
background process (more precisely daemonizes). Shell scripts
tend to be slow, needlessly hard to read, very verbose and
fragile. Although they are immensly flexible (after all, they are just
code) some things are very hard to do properly with shell scripts,
such as ordering parallized execution, correctly supervising processes
or just configuring execution contexts in all detail. systemd provides
compatibility with these shell scripts, but due to the shortcomings
pointed out it is recommended to install native systemd service files
for all daemons installed. Also, in contrast to SysV init scripts
which have to be adjusted to the distribution systemd service files
are compatible with any kind of distribution running systemd (which
become more and more these days…). What follows is a terse guide how
to take a SysV init script and translate it into a native systemd
service file. Ideally, upstream projects should ship and install
systemd service files in their tarballs. If you have successfully
converted a SysV script according to the guidelines it might hence be
a good idea to submit the file as patch to upstream. How to prepare a
patch like that will be discussed in a later installment, suffice to
say at this point that the daemon(7)
manual page shipping with systemd contains a lot of useful information
regarding this.

So, let’s jump right in. As an example we’ll convert the init
script of the ABRT daemon into a systemd service file. ABRT is a
standard component of every Fedora install, and is an acronym for
Automatic Bug Reporting Tool, which pretty much describes what it
does, i.e. it is a service for collecting crash dumps. Its SysV script I have uploaded
here.

The first step when converting such a script is to read it
(surprise surprise!) and distill the useful information from the
usually pretty long script. In almost all cases the script consists of
mostly boilerplate code that is identical or at least very similar in
all init scripts, and usually copied and pasted from one to the
other. So, let’s extract the interesting information from the script
linked above:

  • A description string for the service is “Daemon to detect
    crashing apps
    “. As it turns out, the header comments include a
    redundant number of description strings, some of them describing less
    the actual service but the init script to start it. systemd services
    include a description too, and it should describe the service and not
    the service file.
  • The LSB header[1] contains dependency
    information. systemd due to its design around socket-based activation
    usually needs no (or very little) manually configured
    dependencies. (For details regarding socket activation see the original
    announcement blog post.
    ) In this case the dependency on
    $syslog (which encodes that abrtd requires a syslog daemon),
    is the only valuable information. While the header lists another
    dependency ($local_fs) this one is redundant with systemd as
    normal system services are always started with all local file systems
    available.
  • The LSB header suggests that this service should be started in
    runlevels 3 (multi-user) and 5 (graphical).
  • The daemon binary is /usr/sbin/abrtd

And that’s already it. The entire remaining content of this
115-line shell script is simply boilerplate or otherwise redundant
code: code that deals with synchronizing and serializing startup
(i.e. the code regarding lock files) or that outputs status messages
(i.e. the code calling echo), or simply parsing of the verbs (i.e. the
big case block).

From the information extracted above we can now write our systemd service file:

[Unit]
Description=Daemon to detect crashing apps
After=syslog.target

[Service]
ExecStart=/usr/sbin/abrtd
Type=forking

[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target

A little explanation of the contents of this file: The
[Unit] section contains generic information about the
service. systemd not only manages system services, but also devices,
mount points, timer, and other components of the system. The generic
term for all these objects in systemd is a unit, and the
[Unit] section encodes information about it that might be
applicable not only to services but also in to the other unit types
systemd maintains. In this case we set the following unit settings: we
set the description string and configure that the daemon shall be
started after Syslog[2], similar to what is encoded in the
LSB header of the original init script. For this Syslog dependency we
create a dependency of type After= on a systemd unit
syslog.target. The latter is a special target unit in systemd
and is the standardized name to pull in a syslog implementation. For
more information about these standardized names see the systemd.special(7). Note
that a dependency of type After= only encodes the suggested
ordering, but does not actually cause syslog to be started when abrtd
is — and this is exactly what we want, since abrtd actually works
fine even without syslog being around. However, if both are started
(and usually they are) then the order in which they are is controlled
with this dependency.

The next section is [Service] which encodes information
about the service itself. It contains all those settings that apply
only to services, and not the other kinds of units systemd maintains
(mount points, devices, timers, …). Two settings are used here:
ExecStart= takes the path to the binary to execute when the
service shall be started up. And with Type= we configure how
the service notifies the init system that it finished starting up. Since
traditional Unix daemons do this by returning to the parent process
after having forked off and initialized the background daemon we set
the type to forking here. That tells systemd to wait until
the start-up binary returns and then consider the processes still
running afterwards the daemon processes.

The final section is [Install]. It encodes information
about how the suggested installation should look like, i.e. under
which circumstances and by which triggers the service shall be
started. In this case we simply say that this service shall be started
when the multi-user.target unit is activated. This is a
special unit (see above) that basically takes the role of the classic
SysV Runlevel 3[3]. The setting WantedBy= has
little effect on the daemon during runtime. It is only read by the
systemctl enable command, which is the recommended way to
enable a service in systemd. This command will simply ensure that our
little service gets automatically activated as soon as
multi-user.target is requested, which it is on all normal
boots[4].

And that’s it. Now we already have a minimal working systemd
service file. To test it we copy it to
/etc/systemd/system/abrtd.service and invoke systemctl
daemon-reload
. This will make systemd take notice of it, and now
we can start the service with it: systemctl start
abrtd.service
. We can verify the status via systemctl status
abrtd.service
. And we can stop it again via systemctl stop
abrtd.service
. Finally, we can enable it, so that it is activated
by default on future boots with systemctl enable
abrtd.service
.

The service file above, while sufficient and basically a 1:1
translation (feature- and otherwise) of the SysV init script still has room for
improvement. Here it is a little bit updated:

[Unit]
Description=ABRT Automated Bug Reporting Tool
After=syslog.target

[Service]
Type=dbus
BusName=com.redhat.abrt
ExecStart=/usr/sbin/abrtd -d -s

[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target

So, what did we change? Two things: we improved the description
string a bit. More importantly however, we changed the type of the
service to dbus and configured the D-Bus bus name of the
service. Why did we do this? As mentioned classic SysV services
daemonize after startup, which usually involves double forking
and detaching from any terminal. While this is useful and necessary
when daemons are invoked via a script, this is unnecessary (and slow)
as well as counterproductive when a proper process babysitter such as
systemd is used. The reason for that is that the forked off daemon
process usually has little relation to the original process started by
systemd (after all the daemonizing scheme’s whole idea is to remove
this relation), and hence it is difficult for systemd to figure out
after the fork is finished which process belonging to the service is
actually the main process and which processes might just be
auxiliary. But that information is crucial to implement advanced
babysitting, i.e. supervising the process, automatic respawning on
abnormal termination, collectig crash and exit code information and
suchlike. In order to make it easier for systemd to figure out the
main process of the daemon we changed the service type to
dbus. The semantics of this service type are appropriate for
all services that take a name on the D-Bus system bus as last step of
their initialization[5]. ABRT is one of those. With this setting systemd
will spawn the ABRT process, which will no longer fork (this is
configured via the -d -s switches to the daemon), and systemd
will consider the service fully started up as soon as
com.redhat.abrt appears on the bus. This way the process
spawned by systemd is the main process of the daemon, systemd has a
reliable way to figure out when the daemon is fully started up and
systemd can easily supervise it.

And that’s all there is to it. We have a simple systemd service
file now that encodes in 10 lines more information than the original
SysV init script encoded in 115. And even now there’s a lot of room
left for further improvement utilizing more features systemd
offers. For example, we could set Restart=restart-always to
tell systemd to automatically restart this service when it dies. Or,
we could use OOMScoreAdjust=-500 to ask the kernel to please
leave this process around when the OOM killer wreaks havoc. Or, we
could use CPUSchedulingPolicy=idle to ensure that abrtd
processes crash dumps in background only, always allowing the kernel
to give preference to whatever else might be running and needing CPU
time.

For more information about the configuration options mentioned
here, see the respective man pages systemd.unit(5),
systemd.service(5),
systemd.exec(5). Or,
browse all of
systemd’s man pages
.

Of course, not all SysV scripts are as easy to convert as this
one. But gladly, as it turns out the vast majority actually are.

That’s it for today, come back soon for the next installment in our series.

Footnotes

[1] The LSB header of init scripts is a convention of
including meta data about the service in comment blocks at the top of
SysV init scripts and is
defined by the Linux Standard Base
. This was intended to
standardize init scripts between distributions. While most
distributions have adopted this scheme, the handling of the headers
varies greatly between the distributions, and in fact still makes it
necessary to adjust init scripts for every distribution. As such the LSB spec
never kept the promise it made.

[2] Strictly speaking, this dependency does not even have to
be encoded here, as it is redundant in a system where the Syslog
daemon is socket activatable. Modern syslog systems (for example
rsyslog v5) have been patched upstream to be socket-activatable. If
such a init system is used configuration of the
After=syslog.target dependency is redundant and
implicit. However, to maintain compatibility with syslog services that
have not been updated we include this dependency here.

[3] At least how it used to be defined on Fedora.

[4] Note that in systemd the graphical bootup
(graphical.target, taking the role of SysV runlevel 5) is an
implicit superset of the console-only bootup
(multi-user.target, i.e. like runlevel 3). That means hooking
a service into the latter will also hook it into the
former.

[5] Actually the majority of services of the default Fedora
install now take a name on the bus after startup.

Leaving Last.fm

Post Syndicated from Laurie Denness original https://laur.ie/blog/2010/09/leaving-last-fm/

I’ve spent 3.43 years at Last.fm, which seems almost like a lifetime. For a long time, I couldn’t ever imagine leaving; every morning I would wake up excited to go and face new challenges and do fascinating new things. In the last 6-12 months so much has changed, as Last.fm gradually slips out of being a startup to being a company that, for better or for worse, has to make some money. I will certainly think twice before working for a company that has anything to do with the music industry… it’s a pain of a situation.

I’ve babysat the wonderful creation that is Last.fm through launches (both expected and unexpected), crashes (always unexpected), overheatings (and break-ins, and power failures… All the kind of thing that should never happen to a datacentre) and plenty of blood, sweat and tears.

It’s been an amazing experience, working with some of the most amazing people I have ever met (some of which have come and gone), but it’s time for me to help another startup through getting up at 4am to fix databases and exciting scaling questions.

And that will be Etsy; another website that has an awesome product that I love, plenty of traffic and graphs that point upwards and a bunch of guys who are passionate and have an awesome method of working. I’m really excited about getting involved and learning things again, as well as enabling a different group of passionate users go about their day to day business. I’ll still be in London, but popping to NY on occasion.

Let’s hope the next 3.43 years will be just as exciting.

Facebook Status and Burglaries

Post Syndicated from David original http://devilsadvocatesecurity.blogspot.com/2010/09/facebook-status-and-burglaries.html

WMUR in New Hampshire reports what is one of the first large-scale burglary cases based on Facebook status messages that I’m aware of. For those of us who need to communicate about Facebook and social network security concerns to varied populations, this is a great example to cite. According to the article, “Investigators said the suspects used social networking sites such as Facebook to identify victims who posted online that they would not be home at a certain time.”

The article mentions $100,000-200,000 of stolen property that was recovered, and that the case was solved due to an officer who noticed that fireworks of the same brand reported stolen in a burglary were being shot off and investigated on orders to check out any fireworks they heard being fired.

A Different Angle on Identity Theft: When Identity Thieves Use Your Identity

Post Syndicated from David original http://devilsadvocatesecurity.blogspot.com/2010/09/different-angle-on-identity-theft-when.html

The story of Dr. Gemma Meadows, as reported by MSNBC is an intriguing one. Like many victims of identity theft, she was contacted by her bank and informed of fraudulent activity. What happened next though, is a bit off the normal path for identity theft victims.

Various packages with a wide range of values started to show up, and have continued to show up. Now, Dr. Meadows spends time tracking and returning packages, as well as fielding calls from various vendors from whom the items are ordered.

Why? According to the article, and what she has been able to determine, the identity thieves are using her information to test validation scripts on e-commerce websites. Her valid address, phone, and other details are being used to make transactions appear valid.

Interestingly, the scripts seem to work in some cases, flagging the transactions as possible fraudlent. The article mentions that some sites note that the item is to be shipped thousands of kilometers away from the order location, and that others call to verify that she is the one placing the order. Many others, however, don’t do as well, and the stream of packages continues.

The article is well worth a read. We’re used to seeing lives disrupted by identity theft and the credit and financial issues that can go with it. Receiving packages when criminals use your identity to support their crimes in a different way is an entirely different event, and appears to be one that law enforcement and our database driven society isn’t geared to handle.

Two Thank-Yous

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/09/11/two-thank-yous.html

I’m well known for being critical when necessary about what happens in
the software freedom community, but occasionally, there’s nothing to do
but thank someone, particularly when they’ve done something I asked
for. 🙂

First, I’d like to
thank Matthew Garrett
for engaging in some
GPL enforcement
(as
covered on lwn.net
). He’s taking an interesting tack of filing a
complaint with US Customs. I’ve thought about this method in the past,
but never really felt I wanted to go that route (mainly because I’m more
familiar with the traditional GPL enforcement processes). However, it’s
really important that we try lots of different strategies for GPL
enforcement; the path to success is often many methods in parallel. It
looks like
Matthew already
got the attention of the violator
. In the end, every GPL
enforcement strategy is primarily to get the violator’s attention so
they take the issue seriously and come into compliance with the
license.

I’ve written
before about how GPL enforcement can be a lonely place
, and when I
see someone get serious about doing some — as Matthew has in the
last year or so — it makes GPL enforcement a lot less lonely. I
still think I can count on my hands all the people active regularly in
GPL enforcement efforts, but I am glad to see that’s changing. The
license
stands
for a principle
, and we should defend it, despite the great length
the corporate powers in the software freedom world go to in trying to
stop GPL enforcement.

Secondly, I need to thank my
colleague Chris
DiBona
. Two years
ago, I
gave him quite a hard time
that Google prohibited hosting
of AGPLv3‘d
projects on its FLOSS Project
Hosting site
. The interesting part of our debate was that Chris
argued
that license
proliferation
was the reason to prohibit AGPLv3. I argued at the
time that Google simply opposed AGPLv3 because many parts of Google’s
business model rely on the fact that the GPL behaves in practice
somewhat like permissive licenses when deployed in a web services
environment.

Honestly, I never had definitive proof at Google’s “real
reasons” for holding the policy it did for two years, but it
doesn’t matter now, because
yesterday Chris
announced that Google Code Hosting now accepts AGPLv3’d
projects
0. I really
appreciate Chris’ friendly words on AGPLv3, noting that he didn’t
like turning away projects under licenses that serve a truly new
function, like the AGPL
.

Google will now accept projects under any license that is
on OSI’s approved
list
. I think this is a reasonable outcome. I firmly believe that
acceptable license lists must be the purview of not-for-profit
organizations, not for-profit ones. Personally, I tend to avoid and
distrust any license that fails to appear on both OSI’s
list and
the FSF
Free Software License List
. While I obviously favor the FSF list
myself
(having
helped originate it
), I generally want to see a license on both
lists before I’m ready to say for sure there are no worries about
it.

There are two other entities that maintain license lists,
namely the Debian
Project
and
Red Hat’s Fedora
Project
. I wouldn’t say that I find Debian’s list definitive,
mainly because, despite Debian’s generally democratic slant, the
ftp-masters hold a bit too
much power in interpreting
the DFSG.

As for Fedora, that’s ultimately a project controlled by a for-profit
corporation (Red Hat), and therefore I have some trepidation about
trusting their list, just as I had concerns that Google attempted to set
licensing policy by defining an acceptable license list. As it stands
at the moment, I trust Fedora’s list because I know
that Spot
and Fontana
currently have the ultimate say on what does or does not go onto
Fedora’s list. Nevertheless, Red Hat is ultimately in control of
Fedora, so I think its license list can’t be relied on indefinitely
(e.g., in case Spot and/or Fontana ever leave Red Hat at some
point.)

Anyway, I think the best outcome for the community is for
the logical
conjunction
of the OSI’s list and the FSF’s list to be considered
the accepted list of licenses. While I often disagree with the OSI, I
think it’s in the best interest of the community to require that two
distinct non-profits with different missions both
approve a license before it’s considered acceptable. (I suppose I’d
have a different view if OSI had
not accepted
the AGPLv3
, though. 😉


0I must point out
that Chris has an error
in his
blog post
: namely, FSF’s Code
hosting site, Savannah
accepts not
just GPL‘d
projects, but any project that is listed as
“GPL-Compatible” on FSF’s Free Software License List
.

Two Thank-Yous

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/09/11/two-thank-yous.html

I’m well known for being critical when necessary about what happens in
the software freedom community, but occasionally, there’s nothing to do
but thank someone, particularly when they’ve done something I asked
for. 🙂

First, I’d like to
thank Matthew Garrett
for engaging in some
GPL enforcement
(as
covered on lwn.net
). He’s taking an interesting tack of filing a
complaint with US Customs. I’ve thought about this method in the past,
but never really felt I wanted to go that route (mainly because I’m more
familiar with the traditional GPL enforcement processes). However, it’s
really important that we try lots of different strategies for GPL
enforcement; the path to success is often many methods in parallel. It
looks like
Matthew already
got the attention of the violator
. In the end, every GPL
enforcement strategy is primarily to get the violator’s attention so
they take the issue seriously and come into compliance with the
license.

I’ve written
before about how GPL enforcement can be a lonely place
, and when I
see someone get serious about doing some — as Matthew has in the
last year or so — it makes GPL enforcement a lot less lonely. I
still think I can count on my hands all the people active regularly in
GPL enforcement efforts, but I am glad to see that’s changing. The
license
stands
for a principle
, and we should defend it, despite the great length
the corporate powers in the software freedom world go to in trying to
stop GPL enforcement.

Secondly, I need to thank my
colleague Chris
DiBona
. Two years
ago, I
gave him quite a hard time
that Google prohibited hosting
of AGPLv3‘d
projects on its FLOSS Project
Hosting site
. The interesting part of our debate was that Chris
argued
that license
proliferation
was the reason to prohibit AGPLv3. I argued at the
time that Google simply opposed AGPLv3 because many parts of Google’s
business model rely on the fact that the GPL behaves in practice
somewhat like permissive licenses when deployed in a web services
environment.

Honestly, I never had definitive proof at Google’s “real
reasons” for holding the policy it did for two years, but it
doesn’t matter now, because
yesterday Chris
announced that Google Code Hosting now accepts AGPLv3’d
projects
0. I really
appreciate Chris’ friendly words on AGPLv3, noting that he didn’t
like turning away projects under licenses that serve a truly new
function, like the AGPL
.

Google will now accept projects under any license that is
on OSI’s approved
list
. I think this is a reasonable outcome. I firmly believe that
acceptable license lists must be the purview of not-for-profit
organizations, not for-profit ones. Personally, I tend to avoid and
distrust any license that fails to appear on both OSI’s
list and
the FSF
Free Software License List
. While I obviously favor the FSF list
myself
(having
helped originate it
), I generally want to see a license on both
lists before I’m ready to say for sure there are no worries about
it.

There are two other entities that maintain license lists,
namely the Debian
Project
and
Red Hat’s Fedora
Project
. I wouldn’t say that I find Debian’s list definitive,
mainly because, despite Debian’s generally democratic slant, the
ftp-masters hold a bit too
much power in interpreting
the DFSG.

As for Fedora, that’s ultimately a project controlled by a for-profit
corporation (Red Hat), and therefore I have some trepidation about
trusting their list, just as I had concerns that Google attempted to set
licensing policy by defining an acceptable license list. As it stands
at the moment, I trust Fedora’s list because I know
that Spot
and Fontana
currently have the ultimate say on what does or does not go onto
Fedora’s list. Nevertheless, Red Hat is ultimately in control of
Fedora, so I think its license list can’t be relied on indefinitely
(e.g., in case Spot and/or Fontana ever leave Red Hat at some
point.)

Anyway, I think the best outcome for the community is for
the logical
conjunction
of the OSI’s list and the FSF’s list to be considered
the accepted list of licenses. While I often disagree with the OSI, I
think it’s in the best interest of the community to require that two
distinct non-profits with different missions both
approve a license before it’s considered acceptable. (I suppose I’d
have a different view if OSI had
not accepted
the AGPLv3
, though. 😉


0I must point out
that Chris has an error
in his
blog post
: namely, FSF’s Code
hosting site, Savannah
accepts not
just GPL‘d
projects, but any project that is listed as
“GPL-Compatible” on FSF’s Free Software License List
.

Two Thank-Yous

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/09/11/two-thank-yous.html

I’m well known for being critical when necessary about what happens in
the software freedom community, but occasionally, there’s nothing to do
but thank someone, particularly when they’ve done something I asked
for. 🙂

First, I’d like to
thank Matthew Garrett
for engaging in some
GPL enforcement
(as
covered on lwn.net
). He’s taking an interesting tack of filing a
complaint with US Customs. I’ve thought about this method in the past,
but never really felt I wanted to go that route (mainly because I’m more
familiar with the traditional GPL enforcement processes). However, it’s
really important that we try lots of different strategies for GPL
enforcement; the path to success is often many methods in parallel. It
looks like
Matthew already
got the attention of the violator
. In the end, every GPL
enforcement strategy is primarily to get the violator’s attention so
they take the issue seriously and come into compliance with the
license.

I’ve written
before about how GPL enforcement can be a lonely place
, and when I
see someone get serious about doing some — as Matthew has in the
last year or so — it makes GPL enforcement a lot less lonely. I
still think I can count on my hands all the people active regularly in
GPL enforcement efforts, but I am glad to see that’s changing. The
license
stands
for a principle
, and we should defend it, despite the great length
the corporate powers in the software freedom world go to in trying to
stop GPL enforcement.

Secondly, I need to thank my
colleague Chris
DiBona
. Two years
ago, I
gave him quite a hard time
that Google prohibited hosting
of AGPLv3‘d
projects on its FLOSS Project
Hosting site
. The interesting part of our debate was that Chris
argued
that license
proliferation
was the reason to prohibit AGPLv3. I argued at the
time that Google simply opposed AGPLv3 because many parts of Google’s
business model rely on the fact that the GPL behaves in practice
somewhat like permissive licenses when deployed in a web services
environment.

Honestly, I never had definitive proof at Google’s “real
reasons” for holding the policy it did for two years, but it
doesn’t matter now, because
yesterday Chris
announced that Google Code Hosting now accepts AGPLv3’d
projects
0. I really
appreciate Chris’ friendly words on AGPLv3, noting that he didn’t
like turning away projects under licenses that serve a truly new
function, like the AGPL
.

Google will now accept projects under any license that is
on OSI’s approved
list
. I think this is a reasonable outcome. I firmly believe that
acceptable license lists must be the purview of not-for-profit
organizations, not for-profit ones. Personally, I tend to avoid and
distrust any license that fails to appear on both OSI’s
list and
the FSF
Free Software License List
. While I obviously favor the FSF list
myself
(having
helped originate it
), I generally want to see a license on both
lists before I’m ready to say for sure there are no worries about
it.

There are two other entities that maintain license lists,
namely the Debian
Project
and
Red Hat’s Fedora
Project
. I wouldn’t say that I find Debian’s list definitive,
mainly because, despite Debian’s generally democratic slant, the
ftp-masters hold a bit too
much power in interpreting
the DFSG.

As for Fedora, that’s ultimately a project controlled by a for-profit
corporation (Red Hat), and therefore I have some trepidation about
trusting their list, just as I had concerns that Google attempted to set
licensing policy by defining an acceptable license list. As it stands
at the moment, I trust Fedora’s list because I know
that Spot
and Fontana
currently have the ultimate say on what does or does not go onto
Fedora’s list. Nevertheless, Red Hat is ultimately in control of
Fedora, so I think its license list can’t be relied on indefinitely
(e.g., in case Spot and/or Fontana ever leave Red Hat at some
point.)

Anyway, I think the best outcome for the community is for
the logical
conjunction
of the OSI’s list and the FSF’s list to be considered
the accepted list of licenses. While I often disagree with the OSI, I
think it’s in the best interest of the community to require that two
distinct non-profits with different missions both
approve a license before it’s considered acceptable. (I suppose I’d
have a different view if OSI had
not accepted
the AGPLv3
, though. 😉


0I must point out
that Chris has an error
in his
blog post
: namely, FSF’s Code
hosting site, Savannah
accepts not
just GPL‘d
projects, but any project that is listed as
“GPL-Compatible” on FSF’s Free Software License List
.

Two Thank-Yous

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/09/11/two-thank-yous.html

I’m well known for being critical when necessary about what happens in
the software freedom community, but occasionally, there’s nothing to do
but thank someone, particularly when they’ve done something I asked
for. 🙂

First, I’d like to
thank Matthew Garrett
for engaging in some
GPL enforcement
(as
covered on lwn.net
). He’s taking an interesting tack of filing a
complaint with US Customs. I’ve thought about this method in the past,
but never really felt I wanted to go that route (mainly because I’m more
familiar with the traditional GPL enforcement processes). However, it’s
really important that we try lots of different strategies for GPL
enforcement; the path to success is often many methods in parallel. It
looks like
Matthew already
got the attention of the violator
. In the end, every GPL
enforcement strategy is primarily to get the violator’s attention so
they take the issue seriously and come into compliance with the
license.

I’ve written
before about how GPL enforcement can be a lonely place
, and when I
see someone get serious about doing some — as Matthew has in the
last year or so — it makes GPL enforcement a lot less lonely. I
still think I can count on my hands all the people active regularly in
GPL enforcement efforts, but I am glad to see that’s changing. The
license
stands
for a principle
, and we should defend it, despite the great length
the corporate powers in the software freedom world go to in trying to
stop GPL enforcement.

Secondly, I need to thank my
colleague Chris
DiBona
. Two years
ago, I
gave him quite a hard time
that Google prohibited hosting
of AGPLv3‘d
projects on its FLOSS Project
Hosting site
. The interesting part of our debate was that Chris
argued
that license
proliferation
was the reason to prohibit AGPLv3. I argued at the
time that Google simply opposed AGPLv3 because many parts of Google’s
business model rely on the fact that the GPL behaves in practice
somewhat like permissive licenses when deployed in a web services
environment.

Honestly, I never had definitive proof at Google’s “real
reasons” for holding the policy it did for two years, but it
doesn’t matter now, because
yesterday Chris
announced that Google Code Hosting now accepts AGPLv3’d
projects
0. I really
appreciate Chris’ friendly words on AGPLv3, noting that he didn’t
like turning away projects under licenses that serve a truly new
function, like the AGPL
.

Google will now accept projects under any license that is
on OSI’s approved
list
. I think this is a reasonable outcome. I firmly believe that
acceptable license lists must be the purview of not-for-profit
organizations, not for-profit ones. Personally, I tend to avoid and
distrust any license that fails to appear on both OSI’s
list and
the FSF
Free Software License List
. While I obviously favor the FSF list
myself
(having
helped originate it
), I generally want to see a license on both
lists before I’m ready to say for sure there are no worries about
it.

There are two other entities that maintain license lists,
namely the Debian
Project
and
Red Hat’s Fedora
Project
. I wouldn’t say that I find Debian’s list definitive,
mainly because, despite Debian’s generally democratic slant, the
ftp-masters hold a bit too
much power in interpreting
the DFSG.

As for Fedora, that’s ultimately a project controlled by a for-profit
corporation (Red Hat), and therefore I have some trepidation about
trusting their list, just as I had concerns that Google attempted to set
licensing policy by defining an acceptable license list. As it stands
at the moment, I trust Fedora’s list because I know
that Spot
and Fontana
currently have the ultimate say on what does or does not go onto
Fedora’s list. Nevertheless, Red Hat is ultimately in control of
Fedora, so I think its license list can’t be relied on indefinitely
(e.g., in case Spot and/or Fontana ever leave Red Hat at some
point.)

Anyway, I think the best outcome for the community is for
the logical
conjunction
of the OSI’s list and the FSF’s list to be considered
the accepted list of licenses. While I often disagree with the OSI, I
think it’s in the best interest of the community to require that two
distinct non-profits with different missions both
approve a license before it’s considered acceptable. (I suppose I’d
have a different view if OSI had
not accepted
the AGPLv3
, though. 😉


0I must point out
that Chris has an error
in his
blog post
: namely, FSF’s Code
hosting site, Savannah
accepts not
just GPL‘d
projects, but any project that is listed as
“GPL-Compatible” on FSF’s Free Software License List
.

Two Thank-Yous

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/09/11/two-thank-yous.html

I’m well known for being critical when necessary about what happens in
the software freedom community, but occasionally, there’s nothing to do
but thank someone, particularly when they’ve done something I asked
for. 🙂

First, I’d like to
thank Matthew Garrett
for engaging in some
GPL enforcement
(as
covered on lwn.net
). He’s taking an interesting tack of filing a
complaint with US Customs. I’ve thought about this method in the past,
but never really felt I wanted to go that route (mainly because I’m more
familiar with the traditional GPL enforcement processes). However, it’s
really important that we try lots of different strategies for GPL
enforcement; the path to success is often many methods in parallel. It
looks like
Matthew already
got the attention of the violator
. In the end, every GPL
enforcement strategy is primarily to get the violator’s attention so
they take the issue seriously and come into compliance with the
license.

I’ve written
before about how GPL enforcement can be a lonely place
, and when I
see someone get serious about doing some — as Matthew has in the
last year or so — it makes GPL enforcement a lot less lonely. I
still think I can count on my hands all the people active regularly in
GPL enforcement efforts, but I am glad to see that’s changing. The
license
stands
for a principle
, and we should defend it, despite the great length
the corporate powers in the software freedom world go to in trying to
stop GPL enforcement.

Secondly, I need to thank my
colleague Chris
DiBona
. Two years
ago, I
gave him quite a hard time
that Google prohibited hosting
of AGPLv3‘d
projects on its FLOSS Project
Hosting site
. The interesting part of our debate was that Chris
argued
that license
proliferation
was the reason to prohibit AGPLv3. I argued at the
time that Google simply opposed AGPLv3 because many parts of Google’s
business model rely on the fact that the GPL behaves in practice
somewhat like permissive licenses when deployed in a web services
environment.

Honestly, I never had definitive proof at Google’s “real
reasons” for holding the policy it did for two years, but it
doesn’t matter now, because
yesterday Chris
announced that Google Code Hosting now accepts AGPLv3’d
projects
0. I really
appreciate Chris’ friendly words on AGPLv3, noting that he didn’t
like turning away projects under licenses that serve a truly new
function, like the AGPL
.

Google will now accept projects under any license that is
on OSI’s approved
list
. I think this is a reasonable outcome. I firmly believe that
acceptable license lists must be the purview of not-for-profit
organizations, not for-profit ones. Personally, I tend to avoid and
distrust any license that fails to appear on both OSI’s
list and
the FSF
Free Software License List
. While I obviously favor the FSF list
myself
(having
helped originate it
), I generally want to see a license on both
lists before I’m ready to say for sure there are no worries about
it.

There are two other entities that maintain license lists,
namely the Debian
Project
and
Red Hat’s Fedora
Project
. I wouldn’t say that I find Debian’s list definitive,
mainly because, despite Debian’s generally democratic slant, the
ftp-masters hold a bit too
much power in interpreting
the DFSG.

As for Fedora, that’s ultimately a project controlled by a for-profit
corporation (Red Hat), and therefore I have some trepidation about
trusting their list, just as I had concerns that Google attempted to set
licensing policy by defining an acceptable license list. As it stands
at the moment, I trust Fedora’s list because I know
that Spot
and Fontana
currently have the ultimate say on what does or does not go onto
Fedora’s list. Nevertheless, Red Hat is ultimately in control of
Fedora, so I think its license list can’t be relied on indefinitely
(e.g., in case Spot and/or Fontana ever leave Red Hat at some
point.)

Anyway, I think the best outcome for the community is for
the logical
conjunction
of the OSI’s list and the FSF’s list to be considered
the accepted list of licenses. While I often disagree with the OSI, I
think it’s in the best interest of the community to require that two
distinct non-profits with different missions both
approve a license before it’s considered acceptable. (I suppose I’d
have a different view if OSI had
not accepted
the AGPLv3
, though. 😉


0I must point out
that Chris has an error
in his
blog post
: namely, FSF’s Code
hosting site, Savannah
accepts not
just GPL‘d
projects, but any project that is listed as
“GPL-Compatible” on FSF’s Free Software License List
.

Two Thank-Yous

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/09/11/two-thank-yous.html

I’m well known for being critical when necessary about what happens in
the software freedom community, but occasionally, there’s nothing to do
but thank someone, particularly when they’ve done something I asked
for. 🙂

First, I’d like to
thank Matthew Garrett
for engaging in some
GPL enforcement
(as
covered on lwn.net
). He’s taking an interesting tack of filing a
complaint with US Customs. I’ve thought about this method in the past,
but never really felt I wanted to go that route (mainly because I’m more
familiar with the traditional GPL enforcement processes). However, it’s
really important that we try lots of different strategies for GPL
enforcement; the path to success is often many methods in parallel. It
looks like
Matthew already
got the attention of the violator
. In the end, every GPL
enforcement strategy is primarily to get the violator’s attention so
they take the issue seriously and come into compliance with the
license.

I’ve written
before about how GPL enforcement can be a lonely place
, and when I
see someone get serious about doing some — as Matthew has in the
last year or so — it makes GPL enforcement a lot less lonely. I
still think I can count on my hands all the people active regularly in
GPL enforcement efforts, but I am glad to see that’s changing. The
license
stands
for a principle
, and we should defend it, despite the great length
the corporate powers in the software freedom world go to in trying to
stop GPL enforcement.

Secondly, I need to thank my
colleague Chris
DiBona
. Two years
ago, I
gave him quite a hard time
that Google prohibited hosting
of AGPLv3‘d
projects on its FLOSS Project
Hosting site
. The interesting part of our debate was that Chris
argued
that license
proliferation
was the reason to prohibit AGPLv3. I argued at the
time that Google simply opposed AGPLv3 because many parts of Google’s
business model rely on the fact that the GPL behaves in practice
somewhat like permissive licenses when deployed in a web services
environment.

Honestly, I never had definitive proof at Google’s “real
reasons” for holding the policy it did for two years, but it
doesn’t matter now, because
yesterday Chris
announced that Google Code Hosting now accepts AGPLv3’d
projects
0. I really
appreciate Chris’ friendly words on AGPLv3, noting that he didn’t
like turning away projects under licenses that serve a truly new
function, like the AGPL
.

Google will now accept projects under any license that is
on OSI’s approved
list
. I think this is a reasonable outcome. I firmly believe that
acceptable license lists must be the purview of not-for-profit
organizations, not for-profit ones. Personally, I tend to avoid and
distrust any license that fails to appear on both OSI’s
list and
the FSF
Free Software License List
. While I obviously favor the FSF list
myself
(having
helped originate it
), I generally want to see a license on both
lists before I’m ready to say for sure there are no worries about
it.

There are two other entities that maintain license lists,
namely the Debian
Project
and
Red Hat’s Fedora
Project
. I wouldn’t say that I find Debian’s list definitive,
mainly because, despite Debian’s generally democratic slant, the
ftp-masters hold a bit too
much power in interpreting
the DFSG.

As for Fedora, that’s ultimately a project controlled by a for-profit
corporation (Red Hat), and therefore I have some trepidation about
trusting their list, just as I had concerns that Google attempted to set
licensing policy by defining an acceptable license list. As it stands
at the moment, I trust Fedora’s list because I know
that Spot
and Fontana
currently have the ultimate say on what does or does not go onto
Fedora’s list. Nevertheless, Red Hat is ultimately in control of
Fedora, so I think its license list can’t be relied on indefinitely
(e.g., in case Spot and/or Fontana ever leave Red Hat at some
point.)

Anyway, I think the best outcome for the community is for
the logical
conjunction
of the OSI’s list and the FSF’s list to be considered
the accepted list of licenses. While I often disagree with the OSI, I
think it’s in the best interest of the community to require that two
distinct non-profits with different missions both
approve a license before it’s considered acceptable. (I suppose I’d
have a different view if OSI had
not accepted
the AGPLv3
, though. 😉


0I must point out
that Chris has an error
in his
blog post
: namely, FSF’s Code
hosting site, Savannah
accepts not
just GPL‘d
projects, but any project that is listed as
“GPL-Compatible” on FSF’s Free Software License List
.

Two Thank-Yous

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/09/11/two-thank-yous.html

I’m well known for being critical when necessary about what happens in
the software freedom community, but occasionally, there’s nothing to do
but thank someone, particularly when they’ve done something I asked
for. 🙂

First, I’d like to
thank Matthew Garrett
for engaging in some
GPL enforcement
(as
covered on lwn.net
). He’s taking an interesting tack of filing a
complaint with US Customs. I’ve thought about this method in the past,
but never really felt I wanted to go that route (mainly because I’m more
familiar with the traditional GPL enforcement processes). However, it’s
really important that we try lots of different strategies for GPL
enforcement; the path to success is often many methods in parallel. It
looks like
Matthew already
got the attention of the violator
. In the end, every GPL
enforcement strategy is primarily to get the violator’s attention so
they take the issue seriously and come into compliance with the
license.

I’ve written
before about how GPL enforcement can be a lonely place
, and when I
see someone get serious about doing some — as Matthew has in the
last year or so — it makes GPL enforcement a lot less lonely. I
still think I can count on my hands all the people active regularly in
GPL enforcement efforts, but I am glad to see that’s changing. The
license
stands
for a principle
, and we should defend it, despite the great length
the corporate powers in the software freedom world go to in trying to
stop GPL enforcement.

Secondly, I need to thank my
colleague Chris
DiBona
. Two years
ago, I
gave him quite a hard time
that Google prohibited hosting
of AGPLv3‘d
projects on its FLOSS Project
Hosting site
. The interesting part of our debate was that Chris
argued
that license
proliferation
was the reason to prohibit AGPLv3. I argued at the
time that Google simply opposed AGPLv3 because many parts of Google’s
business model rely on the fact that the GPL behaves in practice
somewhat like permissive licenses when deployed in a web services
environment.

Honestly, I never had definitive proof at Google’s “real
reasons” for holding the policy it did for two years, but it
doesn’t matter now, because
yesterday Chris
announced that Google Code Hosting now accepts AGPLv3’d
projects
0. I really
appreciate Chris’ friendly words on AGPLv3, noting that he didn’t
like turning away projects under licenses that serve a truly new
function, like the AGPL
.

Google will now accept projects under any license that is
on OSI’s approved
list
. I think this is a reasonable outcome. I firmly believe that
acceptable license lists must be the purview of not-for-profit
organizations, not for-profit ones. Personally, I tend to avoid and
distrust any license that fails to appear on both OSI’s
list and
the FSF
Free Software License List
. While I obviously favor the FSF list
myself
(having
helped originate it
), I generally want to see a license on both
lists before I’m ready to say for sure there are no worries about
it.

There are two other entities that maintain license lists,
namely the Debian
Project
and
Red Hat’s Fedora
Project
. I wouldn’t say that I find Debian’s list definitive,
mainly because, despite Debian’s generally democratic slant, the
ftp-masters hold a bit too
much power in interpreting
the DFSG.

As for Fedora, that’s ultimately a project controlled by a for-profit
corporation (Red Hat), and therefore I have some trepidation about
trusting their list, just as I had concerns that Google attempted to set
licensing policy by defining an acceptable license list. As it stands
at the moment, I trust Fedora’s list because I know
that Spot
and Fontana
currently have the ultimate say on what does or does not go onto
Fedora’s list. Nevertheless, Red Hat is ultimately in control of
Fedora, so I think its license list can’t be relied on indefinitely
(e.g., in case Spot and/or Fontana ever leave Red Hat at some
point.)

Anyway, I think the best outcome for the community is for
the logical
conjunction
of the OSI’s list and the FSF’s list to be considered
the accepted list of licenses. While I often disagree with the OSI, I
think it’s in the best interest of the community to require that two
distinct non-profits with different missions both
approve a license before it’s considered acceptable. (I suppose I’d
have a different view if OSI had
not accepted
the AGPLv3
, though. 😉


0I must point out
that Chris has an error
in his
blog post
: namely, FSF’s Code
hosting site, Savannah
accepts not
just GPL‘d
projects, but any project that is listed as
“GPL-Compatible” on FSF’s Free Software License List
.

Two Thank-Yous

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/09/11/two-thank-yous.html

I’m well known for being critical when necessary about what happens in
the software freedom community, but occasionally, there’s nothing to do
but thank someone, particularly when they’ve done something I asked
for. 🙂

First, I’d like to
thank Matthew Garrett
for engaging in some
GPL enforcement
(as
covered on lwn.net
). He’s taking an interesting tack of filing a
complaint with US Customs. I’ve thought about this method in the past,
but never really felt I wanted to go that route (mainly because I’m more
familiar with the traditional GPL enforcement processes). However, it’s
really important that we try lots of different strategies for GPL
enforcement; the path to success is often many methods in parallel. It
looks like
Matthew already
got the attention of the violator
. In the end, every GPL
enforcement strategy is primarily to get the violator’s attention so
they take the issue seriously and come into compliance with the
license.

I’ve written
before about how GPL enforcement can be a lonely place
, and when I
see someone get serious about doing some — as Matthew has in the
last year or so — it makes GPL enforcement a lot less lonely. I
still think I can count on my hands all the people active regularly in
GPL enforcement efforts, but I am glad to see that’s changing. The
license
stands
for a principle
, and we should defend it, despite the great length
the corporate powers in the software freedom world go to in trying to
stop GPL enforcement.

Secondly, I need to thank my
colleague Chris
DiBona
. Two years
ago, I
gave him quite a hard time
that Google prohibited hosting
of AGPLv3‘d
projects on its FLOSS Project
Hosting site
. The interesting part of our debate was that Chris
argued
that license
proliferation
was the reason to prohibit AGPLv3. I argued at the
time that Google simply opposed AGPLv3 because many parts of Google’s
business model rely on the fact that the GPL behaves in practice
somewhat like permissive licenses when deployed in a web services
environment.

Honestly, I never had definitive proof at Google’s “real
reasons” for holding the policy it did for two years, but it
doesn’t matter now, because
yesterday Chris
announced that Google Code Hosting now accepts AGPLv3’d
projects
0. I really
appreciate Chris’ friendly words on AGPLv3, noting that he didn’t
like turning away projects under licenses that serve a truly new
function, like the AGPL
.

Google will now accept projects under any license that is
on OSI’s approved
list
. I think this is a reasonable outcome. I firmly believe that
acceptable license lists must be the purview of not-for-profit
organizations, not for-profit ones. Personally, I tend to avoid and
distrust any license that fails to appear on both OSI’s
list and
the FSF
Free Software License List
. While I obviously favor the FSF list
myself
(having
helped originate it
), I generally want to see a license on both
lists before I’m ready to say for sure there are no worries about
it.

There are two other entities that maintain license lists,
namely the Debian
Project
and
Red Hat’s Fedora
Project
. I wouldn’t say that I find Debian’s list definitive,
mainly because, despite Debian’s generally democratic slant, the
ftp-masters hold a bit too
much power in interpreting
the DFSG.

As for Fedora, that’s ultimately a project controlled by a for-profit
corporation (Red Hat), and therefore I have some trepidation about
trusting their list, just as I had concerns that Google attempted to set
licensing policy by defining an acceptable license list. As it stands
at the moment, I trust Fedora’s list because I know
that Spot
and Fontana
currently have the ultimate say on what does or does not go onto
Fedora’s list. Nevertheless, Red Hat is ultimately in control of
Fedora, so I think its license list can’t be relied on indefinitely
(e.g., in case Spot and/or Fontana ever leave Red Hat at some
point.)

Anyway, I think the best outcome for the community is for
the logical
conjunction
of the OSI’s list and the FSF’s list to be considered
the accepted list of licenses. While I often disagree with the OSI, I
think it’s in the best interest of the community to require that two
distinct non-profits with different missions both
approve a license before it’s considered acceptable. (I suppose I’d
have a different view if OSI had
not accepted
the AGPLv3
, though. 😉


0I must point out
that Chris has an error
in his
blog post
: namely, FSF’s Code
hosting site, Savannah
accepts not
just GPL‘d
projects, but any project that is listed as
“GPL-Compatible” on FSF’s Free Software License List
.

Two Thank-Yous

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/09/11/two-thank-yous.html

I’m well known for being critical when necessary about what happens in
the software freedom community, but occasionally, there’s nothing to do
but thank someone, particularly when they’ve done something I asked
for. 🙂

First, I’d like to
thank Matthew Garrett
for engaging in some
GPL enforcement
(as
covered on lwn.net
). He’s taking an interesting tack of filing a
complaint with US Customs. I’ve thought about this method in the past,
but never really felt I wanted to go that route (mainly because I’m more
familiar with the traditional GPL enforcement processes). However, it’s
really important that we try lots of different strategies for GPL
enforcement; the path to success is often many methods in parallel. It
looks like
Matthew already
got the attention of the violator
. In the end, every GPL
enforcement strategy is primarily to get the violator’s attention so
they take the issue seriously and come into compliance with the
license.

I’ve written
before about how GPL enforcement can be a lonely place
, and when I
see someone get serious about doing some — as Matthew has in the
last year or so — it makes GPL enforcement a lot less lonely. I
still think I can count on my hands all the people active regularly in
GPL enforcement efforts, but I am glad to see that’s changing. The
license
stands
for a principle
, and we should defend it, despite the great length
the corporate powers in the software freedom world go to in trying to
stop GPL enforcement.

Secondly, I need to thank my
colleague Chris
DiBona
. Two years
ago, I
gave him quite a hard time
that Google prohibited hosting
of AGPLv3‘d
projects on its FLOSS Project
Hosting site
. The interesting part of our debate was that Chris
argued
that license
proliferation
was the reason to prohibit AGPLv3. I argued at the
time that Google simply opposed AGPLv3 because many parts of Google’s
business model rely on the fact that the GPL behaves in practice
somewhat like permissive licenses when deployed in a web services
environment.

Honestly, I never had definitive proof at Google’s “real
reasons” for holding the policy it did for two years, but it
doesn’t matter now, because
yesterday Chris
announced that Google Code Hosting now accepts AGPLv3’d
projects
0. I really
appreciate Chris’ friendly words on AGPLv3, noting that he didn’t
like turning away projects under licenses that serve a truly new
function, like the AGPL
.

Google will now accept projects under any license that is
on OSI’s approved
list
. I think this is a reasonable outcome. I firmly believe that
acceptable license lists must be the purview of not-for-profit
organizations, not for-profit ones. Personally, I tend to avoid and
distrust any license that fails to appear on both OSI’s
list and
the FSF
Free Software License List
. While I obviously favor the FSF list
myself
(having
helped originate it
), I generally want to see a license on both
lists before I’m ready to say for sure there are no worries about
it.

There are two other entities that maintain license lists,
namely the Debian
Project
and
Red Hat’s Fedora
Project
. I wouldn’t say that I find Debian’s list definitive,
mainly because, despite Debian’s generally democratic slant, the
ftp-masters hold a bit too
much power in interpreting
the DFSG.

As for Fedora, that’s ultimately a project controlled by a for-profit
corporation (Red Hat), and therefore I have some trepidation about
trusting their list, just as I had concerns that Google attempted to set
licensing policy by defining an acceptable license list. As it stands
at the moment, I trust Fedora’s list because I know
that Spot
and Fontana
currently have the ultimate say on what does or does not go onto
Fedora’s list. Nevertheless, Red Hat is ultimately in control of
Fedora, so I think its license list can’t be relied on indefinitely
(e.g., in case Spot and/or Fontana ever leave Red Hat at some
point.)

Anyway, I think the best outcome for the community is for
the logical
conjunction
of the OSI’s list and the FSF’s list to be considered
the accepted list of licenses. While I often disagree with the OSI, I
think it’s in the best interest of the community to require that two
distinct non-profits with different missions both
approve a license before it’s considered acceptable. (I suppose I’d
have a different view if OSI had
not accepted
the AGPLv3
, though. 😉


0I must point out
that Chris has an error
in his
blog post
: namely, FSF’s Code
hosting site, Savannah
accepts not
just GPL‘d
projects, but any project that is listed as
“GPL-Compatible” on FSF’s Free Software License List
.

The collective thoughts of the interwebz