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: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on 13 May 2010 08:25 In message <155f1683-9bfd-4a83-b63f-7fb0fc2f51c5(a)g21g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Patrick Maupin wrote: > On May 12, 10:48 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro > <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > >> In message <mailman.121.1273693278.32709.python-l...(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? > > The freedom to take away other people's freedom is a very serious > power that should only be used sparingly. Given that the GPL restricts that power, then it must be all right.
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on 13 May 2010 08:38 In message <mailman.2834.1273453242.23598.python-list(a)python.org>, Ed Keith wrote: > If, on the other hand you are releasing a library, to be incorporated into > other products, If you release it under the GPL I will not take the time > to learn it. I do not want to have to think about what took I can legally > use for what job. Libraries with permissive licenses can be used in any > project. Many contracts prohibit the use of GPL or LGPL code. So I do not > waist my time learning to use libraries covered by restrictive licenses. > So if you want me to even consider using your library do not use GPL, or > LGPL. What have you got against LGPL for this purpose?
From: Paul Boddie on 13 May 2010 10:53 On 13 Mai, 01:36, Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. In that very case you mention, LaserComb did not lose the copyright protection on their work, were "free to bring an infringement suit once it had cured the misuse" [1], and the clause which led to a defence based on "copyright misuse" was one which forbade licensees from making competing products. Paul [1] http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Lasercomb_America_v._Reynolds#cite_ref-2
From: Patrick Maupin on 13 May 2010 11:18 On May 13, 7:25 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...(a)geek- central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > In message > <155f1683-9bfd-4a83-b63f-7fb0fc2f5...(a)g21g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Patrick > > Maupin wrote: > > On May 12, 10:48 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro > > <l...(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > > >> In message <mailman.121.1273693278.32709.python-l...(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 peoples freedom? > > > The freedom to take away other people's freedom is a very serious > > power that should only be used sparingly. > > Given that the GPL restricts that power, then it must be all right. But the freedom to take away other people's freedom to take away other people's freedom is an even *more* serious power (as many communities which have straight-jacketed their law enforcement officers have found out), that should be used *very sparingly*, so your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. Regards, Pat
From: Patrick Maupin on 13 May 2010 11:59
On May 13, 9:53 am, Paul Boddie <p...(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: > On 13 Mai, 01:36, Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > In that very case you mention, LaserComb did not lose the copyright > protection on their work, were "free to bring an infringement suit > once it had cured the misuse" [1], and the clause which led to a > defence based on "copyright misuse" was one which forbade licensees > from making competing products. Yes. You make 3 points here, which I will address in order 1) They did not lose the copyright protection on their work. To be clear, what I meant by losing copyright protection is not at all the same as losing the copyright itself. The loss of protections simply means that you can't necessarily prevail in a lawsuit for infringement against people who infringed while you were misusing the copyright. This could be true, even if while the copyright was being misused, RMS attempted to sue someone else, and even if he had a solid case. From Lasercomb: "However, again analogizing to patent misuse, the defense of copyright misuse is available even if the defendants themselves have not been injured by the misuse." So, during the time of the misuse, yes, they lost their copyright protections, but the loss was only temporary and could be cured going forward by not overreaching in their license agreement. 2) "Were free to bring an infringement suit once they cured the misuse." Yes, if you read the actual footnote you are referencing, it cites United States Gypsum Co. v National Gypsum Co., which was a patent case. In that case, there was a price-fixing cartel based on patents, and the cartel lost its ability to use the patents until they changed their illegal patent licensing scheme. Once they changed how they licensed their patents to the court's satisfaction, they were then free to go after patent infringers. BUT, only for infringements that occurred *after* they cured the infringement. Curing the infringement is not a magic wand that allows you a mulligan for your original cause of action, otherwise the patent/copyright misuse defense would be meaningless. 3) and the clause which led to a defence based on "copyright misuse" was one which forbade licensees from making competing products. Yes, but if you read the reasoning in the decision, almost any attempt to stretch a copyright (or patent) to cover things it doesn't really cover could be viewed as a misuse. So, to the extent that the GPL claims that the distribution of something that links to readline violates readline's copyright by being a derivative work, if a court finds this to be untrue, it could also find that the readline copyright was being misused, at least until the license were modified to make it clear that distributing a program that could use readline (without distributing readline) did not impose any specific licensing requirements on the readline-using program. To follow this logic, all you have to do is to read the LaserComb decision very carefully (it analogizes copyright misuse to patent misuse), and then read the myriad ways it is possible to misuse patents. Regards, Pat |