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: Paul Boddie on 12 May 2010 19:15 On 12 Mai, 20:29, Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > But nobody's whining about the strings attached to the software. Just > pointing out why they sometimes won't use a particular piece of > software, and pointing out that some other people (e.g. random Ubuntu > users) might not understand the full cost of the software, and that > that is because the cost of the software has been deliberately > obscured by using unqualified terms like all-caps "Free Software." Right. The "full cost" of software that probably cost them nothing monetarily and which comes with all the sources, some through a chain of distribution and improvement which could have led to proprietary software had the earliest stages in the chain involved permissive licensing. And that they can't sell a binary-only Ubuntu derivative. [...] > Oh, no wonder I didn't understand what you were getting at with the > analogy. I'm not whining about people licensing stuff under the GPL, > just about its apologists pretending there are never any negative > consequences from it. So, the "negative consequences" are that people can't make proprietary editions of some software. When that's a deliberate choice in the design of a licence, there's no pretending that the consequences aren't there, just that they aren't perceived by everyone to be negative. [Sharing alike] > I somehow knew that is how you would read my posts, but no. It's > people like you putting words in my month that is objectionable. Well, you effectively said that you didn't like being asked to "share alike", which is what the GPL achieves, so why should I not assume that you generally object to other, more obviously labelled licences like the CC-*-SA licences which make it clear what is expected of that hapless recipient of a work who doesn't bother reading the licence? [Obligations after joining a scheme] > Sorry, that is absolutely no different than what I originally said > when I was first defending Aahz's use of the word "force" to Ben > Finney back on the 7th: > > "Perhaps you feel "forces" is too loaded of a word. There is no > question, however, that a copyright license can require that if you do > "X" with some code, you must also do "Y". There is also no question > that the GPL uses this capability in copyright law to require anybody > who distributes a derivative work to provide the source. Thus, > "forced to contribute back any changes" is definitely what happens > once the decision is made to distribute said changes in object form." > > Both your "make" and my "force" mean "to compel." We've come full > circle. The English language makes no real distinction between > "making everyone commit" and "forcing everyone [to] commit". Yes, but you have to choose to do something ("X") to start with. Which is actually what you wrote later in that exchange: "Again, the force is applied once you choose to do a particular thing with the software -- is is really that hard to understand that concept?" But you're virtually claiming that people stumble into a situation where they have to do something they don't like or didn't anticipate, when in fact they've actually entered into an agreement. [...] > My problem, exactly, is that bothering Mepis, yet not bothering Joe > Blow when he gives a copy to his friend, is exactly the kind of > selective enforcement of copyright rights that Microsoft is accused of > when they turn a blind eye to piracy in third-world countries. Nonsense. If anything, it's a matter of priorities, and completely absurd to claim that the FSF and all the other copyright holders for GPL-licensed software on Ubuntu installation media are all conspiring together to "seed" the planet with "unlicensed wares" in order to reap some kind of monetary reward afterwards, which is what Microsoft has been accused of. [...] > Despite your opinion, there is nothing legally or morally wrong with > me using GPL software (and not redistributing it) just because I I never said there was. I said that if you don't like the licence, don't incorporate works which use it into your own projects. But don't say that it's not fair that people are releasing stuff under terms you don't like, or say that they're being "pathetic" or petty or ridiculous by doing so, or are imposing their agenda on you. > happen to feel that (a) for my purposes, for most stuff I write, it > happens to be the wrong license, (b) (especially historically) some of > the practices used to insure proliferation of the GPL are ethically > questionable, and (c) whenever these ethically questionable practices > are discussed, quasi-religious apologists will take these questionable > practices to the next level, by selective quoting and bad analogies > and hinting at things without actually coming out and saying them, and > all sorts of other debate tactics designed to confuse rather than > enlighten. More name-calling and finger-pointing. Great stuff, there. Anything else? Paul
From: Paul Boddie on 12 May 2010 19:32 On 11 Mai, 14:12, Ed Keith <e_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > --- On Mon, 5/10/10, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...(a)benfinney.id.au> wrote: > > > 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. > > You are the one muddying the waters. It does not mater whether you break my > kneecaps, or hire someone else to break my kneecaps, either way my kneecaps > are broken. Nice analogy. In fact, the "force" mentioned above is nothing more than the thing which makes these licensing agreements binding. All the talk about the GPL "forcing" people to do stuff, when the stuff is actually one side of a bargain or the obligations of a party in an agreement, is great theatre but nothing more. > You can use any license you want, but the simple fact is that if there are > fewer restrictions in the license then the user has more freedom in how he > uses the licensed code. Yes, the recipient of that code as issued by you has fewer restrictions on their actions and thus more privileges. However, recipients of the extended work may be denied any or nearly all of these privileges. > If there are more restrictions he/she has less freedom in how he/she uses > the licensed code. Yes, that recipient does not get to exercise certain privileges. However, recipients of the extended work retain the same set of privileges. As do recipients of the work upon subsequent redistribution. > We can debate which is better (whether a man should be free to sell > himself into slavery) but to claim that putting more restrictions on > someone give them more freedom is pure Orwellian double speak. It may provide fewer privileges for initial recipients but may grant those privileges more widely. > Sophistry is the last resort of those who have run out of good > arguments. The more you engage in it the weaker you make your position. Then I challenge you to dispute the statements of my last three paragraphs without introducing a specific notion of "freedom" in order to make your case. > This thread is generating more heat than light, and probably should be dropped. On this I don't necessarily disagree. Paul
From: Patrick Maupin on 12 May 2010 19:36 On May 12, 5:41 pm, Paul Boddie <p...(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: > > Ahh, well done. You've sucked me into a meaningless side debate. If > > I'm not distributing readline, then legally the license distribution > > terms don't apply to me. End of story. (Morally, now we might get > > into how trivial it is or isn't.) > > According to the FSF, whose opinions you don't trust, it doesn't > matter if you do distribute readline or not: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPLhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL > > From version 3 of the GPL: > > "For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files > associated with source files for the work, and the source code for > shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is > specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data > communication or control flow between those subprograms and other > parts of the work." > > You may beg to differ. I would advise against doing so in a courtroom. Well, it's unlikely anybody will get a chance in a courtroom, because nobody's going to bring suit. > > > But you don't need to know anything else. RMS claimed clisp was a > > derivative work of readline, even though readline wasn't even > > distributed with clisp. That's just plain copyright misuse, and if it > > had gone to court with good lawyers, RMS might have lost the copyright > > protections for readline. > > Now that *is* a ridiculous statement. Just because a decision is made > that one work is not derived from another does not mean that the > claimed original work is no longer subject to copyright. Well, it won't come to court because the FSF is just going to posture on this issue, but never really sue anybody (certainly not any open source project), because they would lose both in court and in public opinion. But if they did decide to sue, a few prior cases like Sega v Accolade and Galoob v Nintendo, as well as the court's use of the abstraction, filtration and comparison tests to strip functionality away from copyrightable subject matter, would probably be dispositive in determining that a substantial program like clisp that didn't include readline, but which could use readline, is not, in fact, a derivative of readline. Once the court reaches that conclusion, it would only be a tiny step to find that the FSF's attempt to claim that clisp infringes the readline copyright to be a misuse of that same readline copyright. See, e.g. LaserComb v Reynolds, where the defendant (IMHO) acted much more egregiously than anybody who is delivering free software like clisp is acting, and nevertheless won on that issue. Regards, Pat
From: Patrick Maupin on 12 May 2010 19:58 On May 12, 6:15 pm, Paul Boddie <p...(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: > On 12 Mai, 20:29, Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > But nobody's whining about the strings attached to the software. Just > > pointing out why they sometimes won't use a particular piece of > > software, and pointing out that some other people (e.g. random Ubuntu > > users) might not understand the full cost of the software, and that > > that is because the cost of the software has been deliberately > > obscured by using unqualified terms like all-caps "Free Software." > > Right. The "full cost" of software that probably cost them nothing > monetarily and which comes with all the sources, some through a chain > of distribution and improvement which could have led to proprietary > software had the earliest stages in the chain involved permissive > licensing. And that they can't sell a binary-only Ubuntu derivative. Who's talking about selling a binary-only version -- there is a good chance they can't even give away a binary CD without violating copyright. > [...] > > > Oh, no wonder I didn't understand what you were getting at with the > > analogy. I'm not whining about people licensing stuff under the GPL, > > just about its apologists pretending there are never any negative > > consequences from it. > > So, the "negative consequences" are that people can't make proprietary > editions of some software. When that's a deliberate choice in the > design of a licence, there's no pretending that the consequences > aren't there, just that they aren't perceived by everyone to be > negative. I gave an example earlier of svglib and rst2pdf. Negative consequences. Nothing proprietary involved. > > I somehow knew that is how you would read my posts, but no. It's > > people like you putting words in my month that is objectionable. > > Well, you effectively said that you didn't like being asked to "share > alike", which is what the GPL achieves. I give away lots of software. Free to all comers. Come and get some. > so why should I not assume > that you generally object to other, more obviously labelled licences > like the CC-*-SA licences which make it clear what is expected of that > hapless recipient of a work who doesn't bother reading the licence? Your assumptions are so far away from reality that there is really no good reason why you shouldn't assume that I'm a 10 foot tall purple monster. > > Sorry, that is absolutely no different than what I originally said > > when I was first defending Aahz's use of the word "force" to Ben > > Finney back on the 7th: > > > "Perhaps you feel "forces" is too loaded of a word. There is no > > question, however, that a copyright license can require that if you do > > "X" with some code, you must also do "Y". There is also no question > > that the GPL uses this capability in copyright law to require anybody > > who distributes a derivative work to provide the source. Thus, > > "forced to contribute back any changes" is definitely what happens > > once the decision is made to distribute said changes in object form." > > > Both your "make" and my "force" mean "to compel." We've come full > > circle. The English language makes no real distinction between > > "making everyone commit" and "forcing everyone [to] commit". > > Yes, but you have to choose to do something ("X") to start with. Which > is actually what you wrote later in that exchange: > > "Again, the force is applied once you choose to do a particular thing > with the software -- is is really that hard to understand that > concept?" I didn't just write that later. I wrote it in my very first post, which you just quoted a few lines up, apparently without even bothering to read it closely. I agree with that. But you only grudgingly agree with that, if at all, and when you do you make it look like I'm the one trying desperately not to agree with it, because in order to agree with it, you have to agree that, in the limited context that I used the word "force", it is accurate, and you really don't want to do that. > But you're virtually claiming that people stumble into a situation > where they have to do something they don't like or didn't anticipate, > when in fact they've actually entered into an agreement. Some people (end users of Ubuntu) do stumble into a situation. Some people see and decide not to enter into an agreement and attempt to warn others that there may be consequences -- that if they enter into the agreement they will be "forced" to live with those consequences. This latter group of people always winds up arguing with those who think the GPL is always good and none of the consequences are ever negative, and forced is a loaded word. > > My problem, exactly, is that bothering Mepis, yet not bothering Joe > > Blow when he gives a copy to his friend, is exactly the kind of > > selective enforcement of copyright rights that Microsoft is accused of > > when they turn a blind eye to piracy in third-world countries. > > Nonsense. If anything, it's a matter of priorities, and completely > absurd to claim that the FSF and all the other copyright holders for > GPL-licensed software on Ubuntu installation media are all conspiring > together to "seed" the planet with "unlicensed wares" in order to reap > some kind of monetary reward afterwards, which is what Microsoft has > been accused of. So, the FSF, which so carefully provides the most legalese-ish license on the planet, which was in development for god-knows-how-long, which maintains a carefully parsed FAQ of what you can and can't do, which engages in all sorts of advocacy, can't find the time to explain to Ubuntu that they really ought to explain how the licensing works on their download page? What have you been smoking and where can I get some? > > Despite your opinion, there is nothing legally or morally wrong with > > me using GPL software (and not redistributing it) just because I > > I never said there was. I said that if you don't like the licence, > don't incorporate works which use it into your own projects. No, you said "If you don't like them, don't use GPL-licensed software." > But don't > say that it's not fair that people are releasing stuff under terms you > don't like, or say that they're being "pathetic" or petty or > ridiculous by doing so, or are imposing their agenda on you. The only time I mentioned pathetic and petty were for really small libraries, which probably wouldn't merit copyright protection in any case. > > More name-calling and finger-pointing. Great stuff, there. Anything > else? Yes, just that you keep selectively quoting both of us, and twisting what we both said to meet your agenda. But I'm done. I think there are enough pointers to original material here for others to go and do whatever level of research they deem appropriate for their own situations. Regards, Pat
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on 12 May 2010 23:48
In message <mailman.121.1273693278.32709.python-list(a)python.org>, Ed Keith wrote: > ... but to claim that putting more restrictions on someone give them more > freedom is pure Orwellian double speak. What about the freedom to take away other people's freedom? What tuple of speak would that be? |