Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
As far as I am aware, 0.9.9 beta is not GPL.
I concur with this. I have just been in discussion with some of their developers on IRC and although they *say* it is GPL, it clearly does not comply with the requirements about offering the source in clause 3. Their defence is that it is not released, but I am unsure why this makes a difference if the project is being distributed.
We must hope that the full version is released under the GPL, although recent messages posted to uk.comp.os.linux about its poor security make me wonder how useful this project is at this time.
I concur with this. I have just been in discussion with some of their developers on IRC and although they *say* it is GPL, it clearly does not comply with the requirements about offering the source in clause 3. Their defence is that it is not released, but I am unsure why this makes a difference if the project is being distributed.
Whether they label it as "released" makes no difference at all. By not releasing source, they are not doing what the GPL calls for.
If there is GPL-covered code written by someone else in this release, they are violating the GPL. If that is the case, I suggest that someone point this out privately--don't make the first approach be to write to a mailing list.
On 29 Aug, Richard Stallman wrote:
If there is GPL-covered code written by someone else in this release, they are violating the GPL. If that is the case, I suggest that someone point this out privately--don't make the first approach be to write to a mailing list.
I now have a contact in the Smoothwall team who is willing to take a list of questions and follow it through, acting as a sort of firebreak for Mr Morrell's usual reaction to criticism of the project which he has put so much money into. I suggest that we now attempt to formulate such a list and myself or Alex (simply because those are the names I gave to watch for) then pass that on to the contact. I would hope that by midnight UTC (+0000) tomorrow we could submit such a list, as the topics concerned have been fairly well discussed before.
I hope that is an agreeable outcome for everyone involved.
I'll start by suggesting that the questions should be in two sections, one concerning their main release versions (ie 0.9.8 at this time) and one concerning their beta releases (ie 0.9.9beta at this time).
On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 06:11:56PM +0100, markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
I now have a contact in the Smoothwall team who is willing to take a list of questions and follow it through, acting as a sort of firebreak for Mr Morrell's usual reaction to criticism of the project which he has put so much money into.
We may want to consider today's events also, in writing this list (which I think is a good idea). Check out the news page on smoothwall.org. To summarise:
- SmoothWall 0.9.9 is delayed until middle of September, ostensibly for language translation - SmoothWall 0.9.9b source is now available for download[1] - There is an article by Richard Morrell about the ongoing GPL situation. It's entitled "GNU put the record Straight - SmoothWall IS GPL" (I believe we've ascertained that it's not, and I don't believe any of these events change that fact - see later). I think this was Brian Youmans @ FSF Boston following up on an earlier complaint by Jason Clifford, regarding the phone home spyware in SmoothWall, not the source code availability complaint.
[1] I have downloaded the 'source'. The package weighs in at about 77k, and unpacks to about half a meg. Over 50% of that is language translation, although the installer and setup stuff appears to be there. However, the administration stuff (the web app) is gone, and that _was_ present in earlier source releases. We need to ask about what software is covered by the GPL - all that in the source package appears to be GPL, but it's not anything like the whole source to the system.
Cheers,
Alex.
I suggest that we now attempt to formulate such a list and myself or Alex (simply because those are the names I gave to watch for) then pass that on to the contact.
That is a good first step--it would be good if you would construct a list. When you have made it, please send me the list so I can verify that the problems really are problems.
I suggest that you ask people to report problems *to you alone* and not post them on any mailing list. It looks like the discussion on that list is counterproductive, and that a private discussion with Richard Morrell, conducted by someone who can be diplomatic, is the best way to get the problems corrected.
Note that one problem, a condition imposed by text on their web site, would be fixed by the change that they said they would install.
I would hope that by midnight UTC (+0000) tomorrow we could submit such a list, as the topics concerned have been fairly well discussed before.
There is no super rush--if it takes a week, that is fine. It is important *not* to feel an unnecessary sense of hurry, because that would tend to lead you to take a tone that is less than patient, and that would tend to interfere with resolving the problem in a friendly way.
Sometime on Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 05:21:14PM -0600, Richard Stallman typed out the following... <snip>
I suggest that you ask people to report problems *to you alone* and not post them on any mailing list. It looks like the discussion on that list is counterproductive, and that a private discussion with Richard Morrell, conducted by someone who can be diplomatic, is the best way to get the problems corrected.
Note that one problem, a condition imposed by text on their web site, would be fixed by the change that they said they would install.
<snip> ...and that's all Richard Stallman wrote I'm afraid
OK, not wanting to stretch out the thread unnecessarily, but if you want to bounce anything off me, or want help in anyway I am more than willing. I'm the Smoothwall Community bod and nothing if not easy going and diplomatic. 'tis why Richard wanted me to do it :-)