'Re: Non-free file in pate js_utils plugin'

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kwrite-devel
Subject:    Re: Non-free file in pate js_utils plugin
From:       "Philipp A." <flying-sheep () web ! de>
Date:       2013-12-04 12:13:49
Message-ID: CAN8d9gmR6OaQ+jaqWTTpNWd9qqm04bTxjwckd-TgtXMts0NgtQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]

at first: i'll leave out that "arguably" stuff: debian and fedora decided
that it's nonfree, and we want to be compatible with them, so we treat it
JSLint as if bill gates personally had written it, OK?

2013/12/4 J. Pablo Martín 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
> 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 free
> (arguably), why can't a BSD-licensed software interact with it? Nowhere in
> the BSD license is that restriction. And 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 software, even if the jslint license
> grants freedom of distribution.
>

you're right that it doesn't change the wrapper's own license at all. but
since the wrapper downloads nonfree software, the user ends up with nonfree
software as soon as he runs it.

it's not the intent of free software to circumvent its own principles 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 "Error: this plugin depends on pyjslint"
   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's just there now.

[Attachment #5 (text/html)]

<div dir="ltr">at first: i'll leave out that "arguably" stuff: debian and fedora \
decided that it's nonfree, and we want to be compatible with them, so we treat it \
JSLint as if bill gates personally had written it, OK?<br><div> <br><div \
class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">2013/12/4 J. Pablo Martín Cobos <span \
dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:goinnn@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">goinnn@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div \
class="gmail_quote"><div>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?<br> <div><br></div>
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 free (arguably), why can&#39;t a BSD-licensed software 
interact with it? Nowhere in the BSD license is that restriction. And 
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 
software, even if the jslint license grants freedom of \
distribution.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>you're right \
that it doesn't change the wrapper's own license at all. but since the wrapper \
downloads nonfree software, the user ends up with nonfree software as soon as he runs \
it.<br> <br></div><div>it's not the intent of free software to circumvent its own \
principles 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.</div> <div><br></div><div>so \
the problem is this usecase:<br><ol><li>the user downloaded debian and wants a purely \
free software system</li><li>the user wants to edit javascript using kate</li><li>the \
user discovers the js_utils plugun and activates it. (do far everything is OK: \
Debian, KDE, Kate, js_utils are all free)</li> <li>the user sees "Error: this plugin \
depends on pyjslint"</li><li>the user installs pyjslint to use js_utils (still \
everything OK, pyjslint is BSD licensed)</li><li>the user restarts kate and uses \
js_utils, but unknowingly he has been slipped nonfree code. nobody warned him, it's \
just there now.<br> </li></ol></div></div></div></div></div>

_______________________________________________
KWrite-Devel mailing list
KWrite-Devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kwrite-devel

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 