Picking a license
in [Python]
|
Prev: 2to3 issues with execfile on python 3.0 on files with encoding
Next: Extract a bordered, skewed rectangle from an image
From: Aahz on 10 May 2010 11:06 In article <074b412a-c2f4-4090-a52c-4d69edb29a22(a)d39g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Paul Boddie <paul(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: > >Actually, the copyleft licences don't "force" anyone to "give back >changes": they oblige people to pass on changes. IMO, that's a distinction without a difference, particularly if you define "give back" as referring to the community rather than the original project. With the FSF itself using "pressure" in the FAQ entry you linked to, I have no clue why you and Ben Finney object to my use of "force". -- Aahz (aahz(a)pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n nx prgrmmng.
From: Aahz on 10 May 2010 11:21 [we have previously been using "MIT-style" and "BSD-style" licensing in this thread for the most part -- given the poster who suggested that Apache makes more sense these days, I'm switching to that terminology] In article <99386b28-1636-4f81-beec-3756970d37e8(a)11g2000prv.googlegroups.com>, Carl Banks <pavlovevidence(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >You might argue that GPL is sometimes better than proprietary closed >source, and I won't disagree, but it's nearly always worse than other >open source licenses. That I completely disagree with. I'm not going to bother making arguments (Paul Boddie et al has done a much better job than I could), but I wanted to register my disagreement as someone who generally prefers Apache-style licenses. I will just add that I believe that Apache-style licensing could not work in the absence of GPL software. IOW, I believe that GPL confers a form of herd immunity to Open Source in general, and Stallman gets full credit for creating the idea of GPL to protect Open Source. I believe that Stallman understands this perfectly well and it in part represents why he is so opposed to non-GPL licensing; it makes sense that he feels some resentment toward the "freeloading" from the rest of the Open Source community. OTOH, I also believe that having only GPL would destroy Open Source as a viable development environment and community; it's too restrictive for some very valuable projects (including Python in specific, to bring this back on topic). Each project needs to think carefully about its relationship to the Open Source ecosystem and community before deciding on a license. But for small projects trying to get users, defaulting to Apache makes sense. -- Aahz (aahz(a)pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n nx prgrmmng.
From: Paul Boddie on 10 May 2010 13:37 On 10 Mai, 17:06, a...(a)pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote: > In article <074b412a-c2f4-4090-a52c-4d69edb29...(a)d39g2000yqa.googlegroups..com>, > Paul Boddie <p...(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: > >Actually, the copyleft licences don't "force" anyone to "give back > >changes": they oblige people to pass on changes. > > IMO, that's a distinction without a difference, particularly if you > define "give back" as referring to the community rather than the original > project. There is a difference: I know of at least one vendor of GPL-licensed solutions who received repeated requests that they make their sources available to all-comers, even though the only obligation is to those receiving the software in the first place. Yes, the code can then become public - if Red Hat decided to only release sources to their customers, and those customers shared the sources publicly, then CentOS would still be around as a Red Hat "clone" - but there are situations where recipients of GPL-licensed code may decide that it is in their best interests not to just upload it to the public Internet. > With the FSF itself using "pressure" in the FAQ entry you > linked to, I have no clue why you and Ben Finney object to my use of > "force". Because no-one is being forced to do anything. Claiming that "force" is involved is like hearing a schoolboy saying, "I really wanted that chocolate, but why is that man forcing me to pay for it?" Well, you only have to pay for it if you decide you want to take it - that's the only reasonable response. Paul
From: Patrick Maupin on 10 May 2010 14:36 On May 10, 12:37 pm, Paul Boddie <p...(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: > On 10 Mai, 17:06, a...(a)pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote: > > > In article <074b412a-c2f4-4090-a52c-4d69edb29...(a)d39g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > > Paul Boddie <p...(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: > > >Actually, the copyleft licences don't "force" anyone to "give back > > >changes": they oblige people to pass on changes. > > > IMO, that's a distinction without a difference, particularly if you > > define "give back" as referring to the community rather than the original > > project. > > There is a difference: I know of at least one vendor of GPL-licensed > solutions who received repeated requests that they make their sources > available to all-comers, even though the only obligation is to those > receiving the software in the first place. Yes, the code can then > become public - if Red Hat decided to only release sources to their > customers, and those customers shared the sources publicly, then > CentOS would still be around as a Red Hat "clone" - but there are > situations where recipients of GPL-licensed code may decide that it is > in their best interests not to just upload it to the public Internet. > > > With the FSF itself using "pressure" in the FAQ entry you > > linked to, I have no clue why you and Ben Finney object to my use of > > "force". > > Because no-one is being forced to do anything. Claiming that "force" > is involved is like hearing a schoolboy saying, "I really wanted that > chocolate, but why is that man forcing me to pay for it?" Well, you > only have to pay for it if you decide you want to take it - that's the > only reasonable response. I've addressed this before. Aahz used a word in an accurate, but to you, inflammatory, sense, but it's still accurate -- the man *would* force you to pay for the chocolate if you took it. You're making it sound like whining, but Aahz was simply trying to state a fact. The fact is, I know the man would force me to pay for the chocolate, so in some cases that enters into the equation and keeps me from wanting the chocolate. This isn't whining; just a common-sense description of reality. Personally, I think this use of the word "force" is much less inflammatory than the deliberate act of co-opting the word "freedom" to mean "if you think you can take this software and do anything you want with it, you're going to find out differently when we sue you." Regards, Pat
From: Ben Finney on 10 May 2010 21:15
aahz(a)pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes: > Paul Boddie <paul(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: > >Actually, the copyleft licences don't "force" anyone to "give back > >changes": they oblige people to pass on changes. > > IMO, that's a distinction without a difference, particularly if you > define "give back" as referring to the community rather than the > original project. With the FSF itself using "pressure" in the FAQ > entry you linked to, I have no clue why you and Ben Finney object to > my use of "force". Precisely because there *is* force involved: copyright law is enforced, ultimately, by police with threats to put you in a box forcibly. But that force, it must be recognised, comes from the force of law. The GPL, and all free software licenses, do *not* force anyone to do anything; exactly the opposite is the case. Free software licenses grant specific exceptions to the enforcement of copyright law. They grant freedom to do things that would otherwise be prevented by force or the threat of force. This is obvious when you consider what would be the case in the absence of any free software license: everything that was prohibited is still prohibited in the absence of the license, and indeed some more things are now prohibited as well. Conversely, in the absence of any copyright law (not that I advocate that situation), copyright licenses would have no force in or behind them. So I object to muddying the issue by misrepresenting the source of that force. Whatever force there is in copyright comes from law, not any free software license. -- \ “Let others praise ancient times; I am glad I was born in | `\ these.” —Ovid (43 BCE–18 CE) | _o__) | Ben Finney |