--===============8236471199451356608== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2fa0676adbd04ecb45889 --001a11c2fa0676adbd04ecb45889 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable at first: i=E2=80=99ll leave out that =E2=80=9Carguably=E2=80=9D stuff: deb= ian and fedora decided that it=E2=80=99s nonfree, and we want to be compatible with them, so we tr= eat it JSLint as if bill gates personally had written it, OK? 2013/12/4 J. Pablo Mart=C3=ADn Cobos > pyjslint is python wrapper of JSLint, and its code is BSD-licensed. It is > true that it downloads jslint and invokes it using node.js, but how do > changes the fact that the python wrapper is BSD-licensed? > > jslint is released under a modified MIT license. It is arguably if that > license is free software or not. But even in the case of it not being fre= e > (arguably), why can't a BSD-licensed software interact with it? Nowhere i= n > the BSD license is that restriction. And since it is pyjslint who downloa= ds > the jslint file, it is not present in the KDE repository, so KDE is not > distributing an arguably non free software, even if the jslint license > grants freedom of distribution. > you=E2=80=99re right that it doesn=E2=80=99t change the wrapper=E2=80=99s o= wn license at all. but since the wrapper downloads nonfree software, the user ends up with nonfree software as soon as he runs it. it=E2=80=99s not the intent of free software to circumvent its own principl= es by dynamically downloading incompatible parts. providing a interface that you can plug un your own nonfree stuff: OK. but automatically retrieving and plugging in that nonfree stuff without asking the user: not OK. so the problem is this usecase: 1. the user downloaded debian and wants a purely free software system 2. the user wants to edit javascript using kate 3. the user discovers the js_utils plugun and activates it. (do far everything is OK: Debian, KDE, Kate, js_utils are all free) 4. the user sees =E2=80=9CError: this plugin depends on pyjslint=E2=80= =9D 5. the user installs pyjslint to use js_utils (still everything OK, pyjslint is BSD licensed) 6. the user restarts kate and uses js_utils, but unknowingly he has been slipped nonfree code. nobody warned him, it=E2=80=99s just there now. --001a11c2fa0676adbd04ecb45889 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
at first: i=E2=80=99ll leave out that =E2=80=9Carguably=E2= =80=9D stuff: debian and fedora decided that it=E2=80=99s nonfree, and we w= ant to be compatible with them, so we treat it JSLint as if bill gates pers= onally had written it, OK?

2013/12/4 J. Pabl= o Mart=C3=ADn Cobos <goinnn@gmail.com>
pyjslint is python wrapper of JSLint, and its code is BSD-licensed. It is = true that it downloads jslint and invokes it using node.js, but how do chan= ges the fact that the python wrapper is BSD-licensed?

jslint is released under a modified MIT license. It is=20 arguably if that license is free software or not. But even in the case=20 of it not being free (arguably), why can't a BSD-licensed software=20 interact with it? Nowhere in the BSD license is that restriction. And=20 since it is pyjslint who downloads the jslint file, it is not present in the KDE repository, so KDE is not distributing an arguably non free=20 software, even if the jslint license grants freedom of distribution.
<= /div>

you=E2=80=99re right that= it doesn=E2=80=99t change the wrapper=E2=80=99s own license at all. but si= nce the wrapper downloads nonfree software, the user ends up with nonfree s= oftware as soon as he runs it.

it=E2=80=99s not the intent of free software to circumvent i= ts own principles by dynamically downloading incompatible parts. providing = a interface that you can plug un your own nonfree stuff: OK. but automatica= lly retrieving and plugging in that nonfree stuff without asking the user: = not OK.

so the problem is this usecase:
  1. the user dow= nloaded debian and wants a purely free software system
  2. the user wan= ts to edit javascript using kate
  3. the user discovers the js_utils pl= ugun and activates it. (do far everything is OK: Debian, KDE, Kate, js_util= s are all free)
  4. the user sees =E2=80=9CError: this plugin depends on pyjslint=E2=80=9D<= /li>
  5. the user installs pyjslint to use js_utils (still everything OK, py= jslint is BSD licensed)
  6. the user restarts kate and uses js_utils, b= ut unknowingly he has been slipped nonfree code. nobody warned him, it=E2= =80=99s just there now.
--001a11c2fa0676adbd04ecb45889-- --===============8236471199451356608== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ KWrite-Devel mailing list KWrite-Devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kwrite-devel --===============8236471199451356608==--