Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!
chinacat!rpp386!jfh
From: j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Shadow Password Suite Distributions
Message-ID: <1994Jan28.155926.27987@rpp386>
Sender: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 15:59:26 GMT
Lines: 61

I thought a new thread was appropriate to get rid of the flamage
and other he-said/she-said aspects.

First, to apologize for the confusion and flamage.  I did not want
to take this discussion public, but after receiving copies of postings
about how Shadow is "commercial software" felt it was appropriate to
protest that misrepresentation.  I should have more clearly stated
what Shadow =is= instead of reacting to claims about what Shadow =isn't=.
I am very sorry I did that.  Prior to this past December, I didn't
even know what a "Linux" really was.  I guess we're even ;-)

Shadow is =free= software.  It has been free since 1988 and it will
continue to be free.  It is not "commercial" software and the only
restrictions on its distribution are designed to prevent it from being
a "commercial" product.  The GPL, in my opinion, includes a similar
restriction by forcing you to make the source to any derivative products
available for free.  My solution is to simply force you to make the
entire Shadow package available for free and to not infringe on what you
do with derivative packages.  I found the GPL unacceptable in 1989 when
I considered placing Shadow under the GPL as the GPL does not allow the
author to exercise any control over the direction and content of the
package.  I find the GPL to be very worthwhile in its efforts at making
software freely available and protecting that status of the software
which is covered by the GPL.

This conversation started last year with a private e-mail exchange
between myself and a good number of Linux distributors.  The response
from most of the distributors was essentially "Go to Hell".  In one or
two instances, the distributors made it clear that their distribution
was freely available, as required by both the GPL and my license, and
as such they were told they were in compliance with the wording and
intent of the copyright and attached README file.  As more and more
distributors have made it clear that they too provide free access to
the Shadow code they are distributing, I have sent them notes indicating
that they are in compliance with the statements in the README file.
Recently it became quite burdensome as distributor after distributor
came forward and said "Yes, I make your Shadow code available for free
from an FTP server somewheres." and I sent out notes saying "Then you
have nothing to worry about since you are giving away the code to Shadow
as required by the copyright."  The list of distributors who were in
compliance with the terms of the copyright began to read like a Who's
Who and has now been removed because no one was being excluded.

Without implying that the distributors are to blame (it takes two to
have a miscommunication), the root cause of this entire discussion is a
lack of communication as to how Linux is actually distributed.  The
pending release of Shadow will be much clearer in this regard.  The
single largest change is that it will be clearly stated what you must
do in order to not be in violation of the copyright.  In keeping with
the desire to have Shadow be free software, the README file will
=clearly= state that making the code available by anonymous FTP is a
sufficient step towards being in compliance.  But as was stated earlier,
Shadow will not ever be GPL'd.  It isn't that I am opposed to free
software, I have contributed tens of thousands of lines of the stuff to
USENET in the last 10+ years.  But rather the GPL does not serve my
desire to keep the code from suffering from extensive creeping featurism.
-- 
John F. Haugh II  [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ]   @'s: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
The P.C. Movement killed the 1st Amendment, the Brady Bill the 2nd, the WOsD
got the 4th and 5th, political activism the 9th and 10th.  Not much left, eh?