From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6960 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2014 20:21:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 33615 Received: (qmail 26830 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2014 20:21:28 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 21:15:17 +0100 From: Axel Beckert To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: Zsh bugfixes released by RedHat Message-ID: <20141106201516.GL5405@sym.noone.org> Mail-Followup-To: zsh-workers@zsh.org References: <141106075609.ZM3709@torch.brasslantern.com> <545BAC56.1050804@eastlink.ca> <141106083035.ZM3795@torch.brasslantern.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <141106083035.ZM3795@torch.brasslantern.com> X-Operating-System: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 X-Machine: sym2 x86_64 X-Editor: GNU Emacs 23.4.1 Face: 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 Organization: DeuxChevaux.org -- The =?iso-8859-1?Q?Citr?= =?iso-8859-1?B?b+tu?= 2CV Database User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Hi, On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 08:30:35AM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote: > } Shouldn't they at least offer a patch to you so that it might become > } official everywhere? I know of nearly no license requiring that. And if so, at least Debian would consider such a license as non-free[1]. > Technically they are supposed to offer the patch to us, although zsh's > license is not as clingy that way as the GNU license for example. JFTR: The GNU General Public License does not require that any modification made to software under the GNU GPL is sent back to the _author_ of the software. It only requires that those modifications are available to _users_ of binary compilations based on those modifications. Those users can then decide to forward those patches back to the original author, but nobody is required to do that. There are two common license checks (which the GNU GPL fulfills) which show why it can be a bad idea to require modifications to be sent back to the authors. Citing from [1]: The Desert Island test. Imagine a castaway on a desert island with a solar-powered computer. This would make it impossible to fulfill any requirement to make changes publicly available or to send patches to some particular place. This holds even if such requirements are only upon request, as the castaway might be able to receive messages but be unable to send them. To be free, software must be modifiable by this unfortunate castaway, who must also be able to legally share modifications with friends on the island. The Dissident test. Consider a dissident in a totalitarian state who wishes to share a modified bit of software with fellow dissidents, but does not wish to reveal the identity of the modifier, or directly reveal the modifications themselves, or even possession of the program, to the government. Any requirement for sending source modifications to anyone other than the recipient of the modified binary---in fact any forced distribution at all, beyond giving source to those who receive a copy of the binary---would put the dissident in danger. For Debian to consider software free it must not require any such "excess" distribution. [1] https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines#debian-legal_tests_for_DFSG_compliance Kind regards, Axel -- /~\ Plain Text Ribbon Campaign | Axel Beckert \ / Say No to HTML in E-Mail and News | abe@deuxchevaux.org (Mail) X See http://www.nonhtmlmail.org/campaign.html | abe@noone.org (Mail+Jabber) / \ I love long mails: http://email.is-not-s.ms/ | http://noone.org/abe/ (Web)