Summary of the background to this is available on http://www.smoothwall.org/ from Richard's point of view.
In my words: Jason Clifford, who works for Definite Software, downloaded a copy of "Smoothwall GPL 0.9.9 beta" and discovered that parts were specifically excluded from the GPL but no licence was supplied. He posted to the developer concerned (not Richard) and the newsgroup (because people were duplicating this CD already) because this leaves resellers liable to a particularly nasty fine and imprisonment for illegal distribution. Smoothwall had previously been upset by the CD reseller CheepLinux, which is another part of the Definite Software Group, and so Richard aimed his flamethrower at Jason... http://groups.google.com/ has numerous threads on this.
I'm particularly interested if any FSF people count the Smoothwall developers as friends and how we can best counteract the FUD about the GPL that is being spread by this project.
For your information, here is the most recent episode in the saga:
From: Jason Clifford jason@uklinux.net Newsgroups: uk.comp.os.linux Subject: Re: Smoothwall GPL - not quite licensed under GPL Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 18:04:13 +0100
On 16 Aug 2001, MJ Ray wrote:
As to concerns about the GPL being "insufficient", I find this somewhat remarkable. Has the smoothwall team approached anyone at the Free Software Foundation about their concerns, so that they can be resolved? ISTR reading that Richard saying he counts some FSF Europe people as friends. Allowing them to answer GPL concerns rather than backing away and spreading FUD about one of the major licences would be much fairer.
But Richard evidently likes FUD.
Consider this posting he made to the Smoothwall Users mailing list this afternoon:
"Smoothie will be all these things but not in GPL version sorry. Some of us have to eat and stick two fingers up to opensource freeloaders who don't get the fact that the GPL is cool but fucked."
It seems that he is not so ardent an advocate about the GPL and Free Software as he claims on the Smoothwall web site. That's fine really - there is no requirement that anyone believe in the GPL except those that use it.
The problem here is that Richard's claimed use of the GPL while seeking to subvert it in relation to Smoothwall whilst simultaneously making comments like the one above is simply dishonest.
Jason Clifford
On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 12:45:05PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I'm particularly interested if any FSF people count the Smoothwall developers as friends and how we can best counteract the FUD about the GPL that is being spread by this project.
I knew someone once who did some documentation or website stuff for the project ages ago; I don't think that counts ;)
Let me throw a few other vegetables into the broth: SmoothWall apparantly now calls home (processor version, etc.), and this is now considered a 'condition of ownership': i.e., don't like it, don't install it. There seems to be a bogus 'your mods are copyright to us too' statement in there, which seems to be the source of the current contention (selling a modded version of Smoothy?).
Given they've changed the GPL, I don't think it's the GNU GPL anymore. I can understand the ADSL bits being notGPL - I don't think we have free adsl drivers yet? - but as for the installer? Hmm. Do SuSE still have a non-free license on YaST? That's what it reminds me of.
I can't say I know Jason, although I've had some dealings with him (fixing my mail quite often - he's my ISP as well as my 'dealer' ;), and he's never been anything other than thoroughly pleasant. I'm assuming this is pretty much a personal thing, or at least, that is what initiated it. Also, am I right in saying Richard at Smoothwall is/was a VA Linux employee? Both guys seem to have a track record in not only open source, but free software.
I wonder if we are going to see a Freewall...
Cheers,
Alex.
--