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: Patrick Maupin on 12 May 2010 10:12 On May 11, 10:06 pm, Lie Ryan <lie.1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The point is, GPL (and OWL) is for programmers who just don't care about > the legal stuffs and would want to spend more time writing code than > writing license. Absolutely. When I wrote "permissive license" I was not trying to imply that everybody should roll their own. Regards, Pat
From: Patrick Maupin on 12 May 2010 10:20 On May 12, 7:26 am, Paul Boddie <p...(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: > On 11 Mai, 23:02, Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Huh? Permissive licenses offer much better certainty for someone > > attempting a creative mash-up. Different versions of the Apache > > license don't conflict with each other. If I use an MIT-licensed > > component, it doesn't attempt to make me offer my whole work under > > MIT. > > What certainty does the MIT licence give contributors to a project > against patent infringement claims initiated by another contributor? None. If I was worried about that, I'd probably use the Apache license instead. > > Oh, I get it. You were discussing the certainty that an author can > > control what downstream users do with the software to some extent. > > Yes, I fully agree. The GPL is for angry idealists who have an easily > > outraged sense of justice, who don't have enough real problems to work > > on. > > Again, the author does not exercise control when people must > voluntarily choose to use that author's work and thereby agree to > adhere to that author's set of terms. So you're saying that Microsoft doesn't exercise control about keeping me from using a copy of Windows on more than one machine -- it's not "control" because I agreed to it up front. Sorry, my mileage varies. In fact, I would (and do) say that Microsoft forces me to buy one copy of Windows for every machine I want to run it on. Regards, Pat
From: Patrick Maupin on 12 May 2010 10:45 On May 12, 7:43 am, Paul Boddie <p...(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: > On 11 Mai, 22:50, Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 11, 5:34 am, Paul Boddie <p...(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: > > > > Yes, *if* you took it. He isn't forcing you to take it, though, is he? > > > No, but he said a lot of words that I didn't immediately understand > > about what it meant to be free and that it was free, and then after I > > bit into it he told me he owned my soul now. > > Thus, "owned my soul" joins "holy war" and "Bin Laden" on the list. > That rhetorical toolbox is looking pretty empty at this point. Not emptier than you analogy toolbox. This is really a pretty stupid analogy, but I guess my lame attempts at showing that are wasted. > > > It is whining if someone says, "I really want that chocolate, but that > > > nasty man is going to make me pay for it!" > > > But that's not what happened. I mean, he just told me that I might > > have to give some of it to others later. He didn't mention that if I > > spread peanut butter on mine before I ate it that I'd have to give > > people Reese's Peanut Butter cups. > > He isn't, though. He's telling you that you can't force other people > to lick the chocolate off whatever "Reese's Peanut Butter cups" are, > rather than actually eating the combination of the two, when you offer > such a combination to someone else. No. That's not what is happening, and you've now officially stretched the analogy way past the breaking point. In any case, he's telling me I have to give the recipe for my homemade peanut butter. > Is the Creative Commons share- > alike clause just as objectionable to you, because it's that principle > we're talking about here? I have explained that, in some cases, I will use GPL software, and in other cases I won't, and tried to explain why and what the difference is. Anybody can re-read my posts and figure out that the same might apply to the various Creative Commons licenses. > > > If the man said, "please take the chocolate, but I want you to share > > > it with your friends", and you refused to do so because you couldn't > > > accept that condition, would it be right to say, "that man is forcing > > > me to share chocolate with my friends"? > > > But the thing is, he's *not* making me share the chocolate with any of > > my friends. He's not even making me share my special peanut butter > > and chocolate. What he's making me do is, if I give my peanut butter > > and chocolate to one of my friends, he's making me make *that* friend > > promise to share. I try not to impose obligations like that on my > > friends, so obviously the "nice" man with the chocolate isn't my > > friend! > > Yes, he's making everyone commit to sharing, and yes, it's like a > snowball effect once people agree to join in. Sorry, I sometimes have a hard time distinguishing the semantic difference between "make" and "force". Could you elucidate? > But unless you hide that > commitment, no-one imposes anything on anyone. They can get their > chocolate elsewhere. They join in; they are not conscripted. And I've already explained why, in some cases, someone might refuse the tastiest chocolate in the world to not join in. > > I explained this very carefully before multiple times. Let me give > > concrete examples -- (1) I have told my children before "if we take > > that candy, then they will make us pay for it" and (2) if we included > > (GPLed software) in this (MIT-licensed software) then we will have to > > change the license. In both these cases, once the decision has been > > made, then yes, force enters into it. And no, I don't think the > > average shop keeper is nearly as evil as Darth, or even RMS. > > Entering an agreement voluntarily does not mean that you are forced to > enter that agreement, even if the agreement then involves obligations > (as agreements inevitably do). No, but copyright licenses are funny things, not like contracts where there is a meeting of the minds up front. For example, while the Ciscos of the world have no excuse, I bet a lot of people who download Ubuntu and make copies for their friends are unaware of this section of the GPL FAQ: "I downloaded just the binary from the net. If I distribute copies, do I have to get the source and distribute that too? Yes. The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you received a written offer for source code is quite limited." Regards, Pat
From: Patrick Maupin on 12 May 2010 10:53 On May 12, 2:19 am, Lie Ryan <lie.1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 05/12/10 06:50, Patrick Maupin wrote: > > > > > On May 11, 5:34 am, Paul Boddie <p...(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: > >> On 10 Mai, 20:36, Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> 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. > > >> If the man said, "please take the chocolate, but I want you to share > >> it with your friends", and you refused to do so because you couldn't > >> accept that condition, would it be right to say, "that man is forcing > >> me to share chocolate with my friends"? > > > But the thing is, he's *not* making me share the chocolate with any of > > my friends. He's not even making me share my special peanut butter > > and chocolate. What he's making me do is, if I give my peanut butter > > and chocolate to one of my friends, he's making me make *that* friend > > promise to share. I try not to impose obligations like that on my > > friends, so obviously the "nice" man with the chocolate isn't my > > friend! > > The analogy breaks here; unlike chocolate, the value of software/source > code, if shared, doesn't decrease (in fact, many software increases its > value when shared liberally, e.g. p2p apps). Absolutely true. Actually, the analogy was really pretty broken to start with. It wasn't my analogy -- I was just trying to play along :-) > There might be certain cases where the software contains some trade > secret whose value decreases the more people knows about it; but sharing > does not decrease the value of the software, at least not directly, it > is the value of the secret that decreases because of the sharing. Sure. But in general, people will share, often even when doing so is legally questionable. Just look at the RIAA's woes if you don't believe me. The only real question here is whether the marginal value achieved by adding constraints to force people to share (which most would have done anyway) outweighs the costs to people who, for whatever reason (perhaps a trade secret obligation) *can't* share. The answer to that question may well vary depending on several factors. The fact that GPL and Apache and MIT and BSD are available is a good thing -- whichever license an author feels best fits his project is definitely the one he should use. Regards, Pat
From: Paul Boddie on 12 May 2010 13:17
On 12 Mai, 16:45, Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 7:43 am, Paul Boddie <p...(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: > > Thus, "owned my soul" joins "holy war" and "Bin Laden" on the list. > > That rhetorical toolbox is looking pretty empty at this point. > > Not emptier than you analogy toolbox. This is really a pretty stupid > analogy, but I guess my lame attempts at showing that are wasted. Yes they are. The analogy was to point out that someone can really want something, but if they are not prepared to accept the "price" of acquiring it, then there is no point in them whining about someone withholding that thing from them, or whining about someone "forcing" them to do stuff, especially when there is clearly no "force" involved at all. [...] > > He isn't, though. He's telling you that you can't force other people > > to lick the chocolate off whatever "Reese's Peanut Butter cups" are, > > rather than actually eating the combination of the two, when you offer > > such a combination to someone else. > > No. That's not what is happening, and you've now officially stretched > the analogy way past the breaking point. In any case, he's telling me > I have to give the recipe for my homemade peanut butter. If you want to redefine the basis of the analogy, then you can talk about the recipe all you like, yes. Otherwise, no: the analogy was only about people whining about not being able to get stuff with no strings attached. I could swap that analogy with one that has someone really wanting a ride on a bus, or wanting to go to the moon, where they don't like it when someone tells them that they can't get do that stuff without agreeing to something or other first. Feel free to start discussing the shape of the bus ticket or who pays for spacesuits if you want, but to say, "I really want to use that thing, but that nasty man has licensed it under the GPL" is whining in precisely the same way as featured in the analogy. > > Is the Creative Commons share- > > alike clause just as objectionable to you, because it's that principle > > we're talking about here? > > I have explained that, in some cases, I will use GPL software, and in > other cases I won't, and tried to explain why and what the difference > is. Anybody can re-read my posts and figure out that the same might > apply to the various Creative Commons licenses. So it is objectionable to you as well, then. [...] > > Yes, he's making everyone commit to sharing, and yes, it's like a > > snowball effect once people agree to join in. > > Sorry, I sometimes have a hard time distinguishing the semantic > difference between "make" and "force". Could you elucidate? Yes: once they've agreed to join in, they "have to" go along with the whole scheme. > > But unless you hide that > > commitment, no-one imposes anything on anyone. They can get their > > chocolate elsewhere. They join in; they are not conscripted. > > And I've already explained why, in some cases, someone might refuse > the tastiest chocolate in the world to not join in. Well, great for them. I thought they were "forced" to join in. I guess not. [...] > No, but copyright licenses are funny things, not like contracts where > there is a meeting of the minds up front. For example, while the > Ciscos of the world have no excuse, I bet a lot of people who download > Ubuntu and make copies for their friends are unaware of this section > of the GPL FAQ: > > "I downloaded just the binary from the net. If I distribute copies, do > I have to get the source and distribute that too? Yes. The general > rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete > corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you > received a written offer for source code is quite limited." Yes, and that's why, when Mepis Linux were found not to be distributing the sources, they had to go along with the above section. And that's also why version 3 of the GPL has a clause about nominating a party that will honour the obligation to provide source. But what's your problem exactly? The GPL applies to redistribution, and the default state of a copyrighted work is that you don't have permission to redistribute it, so before someone shares something they have to know whether they are able to do so or not. The various clauses are all there for their own reasons. If you don't like them, don't use GPL-licensed software. Paul |