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 23:07 In message <mailman.133.1273757049.32709.python-list(a)python.org>, Ed Keith wrote: > On Thu, 5/13/10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro > <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > >> In message <mailman.2834.1273453242.23598.python-list(a)python.org>, >> Ed Keith wrote: >> >>> 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? > > Most of my clients would not know how to relink a program if their life > depended on it. And I do not want to put then in DLL hell. So I avoid the > LGPL. How exactly does the LGPL lead to a requirement to “relink”?
From: Patrick Maupin on 13 May 2010 23:35 On May 13, 10:07 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...(a)geek- central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > How exactly does the LGPL lead to a requirement to relink? I think this might be a misconception, but I'm not 100% sure. Since Ed gives his customers full source code, there may not be the requirement to directly provide the ability to relink, because "The Corresponding Application Code for a Combined Work means the object code and/or source code for the Application." and section 4d0 requires you to "permit the user to recombine or relink" where "recombine" isn't defined directly (perhaps in the underlying GPL?) Nonetheless, all the dotting of i's and crossing of t's to satisfy section 4 and the underlying GPL probably require a lawyer to check your source code distribution. For example, what is "prominent notice"? And I love the gem at 4e: "Provide Installation Information, but only if you would otherwise be required to provide such information under section 6 of the GNU GPL, and only to the extent that such information is necessary to install and execute a modified version of the Combined Work produced by recombining or relinking the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version. (If you use option 4d0, the Installation Information must accompany the Minimal Corresponding Source and Corresponding Application Code. If you use option 4d1, you must provide the Installation Information in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.)" I mean, it's in English and very technically precise, but if you follow all the references, you quickly come to realize that the license is a "patch" to the GPL. It was deliberately made in patch format to make it smaller, but as we all know, reading source code and the accompanying patch is almost always more difficult than reading the patched source. Regards, Pat
From: Patrick Maupin on 13 May 2010 23:39 On May 13, 10:03 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...(a)geek- central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > In message <72888d2c-4b1a-4b08-a3aa- > > f4021d2ed...(a)e2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Patrick Maupin wrote: > > If I download an Ubuntu ISO, burn it and give it away (let's say I give > > away 100 copies, just to remove the fair use defense), then I have > > violated the GPL. I provided chapter and verse on this; go look it up. > > I have looked it up <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html>, and sections > 3b or 3c would seem to apply. Or alternatively > <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>, 6b or 6c. If the source you got it > from didnt violate the GPL, then obviously you didnt either. I don't think that's necessarily true. As I've posted before: "In the case of GPL v3, for example, Ubuntu lets me download code under 6d, so if I download it and burn it, I would have to use 6a or 6b; if I had actually received a CD from Ubuntu, I might be able to use 6c, but not if I downloaded it." That's because to use 6c, the initial underlying distribution had to be done with 6b, not 6d. Also the FAQ is very clear: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary Regards, Pat
From: Patrick Maupin on 13 May 2010 23:43 On May 13, 10:04 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...(a)geek- central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > In message <mailman.142.1273767256.32709.python-l...(a)python.org>, Ed Keith > wrote: > > > The claim is being made that [the GPL] restricts freedom. > > What about the freedom to restrict other peoples freedom? Should that be > restricted or not? It's interesting that some people don't like the comparison of the Free Software movement to a religion, yet the main argument of the movement, and the deliberate co-opting of words like "Free" and "Free Software" are done in an attempt to guilt others into accepting RMS's vision of morality. He's perfectly welcome have that vision. But I don't let it affect my own moral compass -- I reject it as just another post-modern religion, AKA cult. Regards, Pat
From: Patrick Maupin on 13 May 2010 23:45
On May 13, 10:06 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...(a)geek- central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > In message <mailman.141.1273767256.32709.python-l...(a)python.org>, Ed Keith > wrote: > > > > > Assertion I: > > If person A is free to do more than person B, then person A has > > more freedom then person B. > > > Assertion II: > > If person A is free do perform an action person B is not free to > > perform then person A is free to do more than person B. > > > Assertion III: > > If person B is restricted in some way that person A is not them Person A > > is free to do something Person B is not free to do. > > > Conclusion: > > If person B is more resticted than Peston A, Person A has mor freedom > > than person B. > > > Which step in this reasoning do you disagree with? > > Under the GPL, everybody has exactly the same freedoms. So which of your > assertions is supposedly a criticism of the GPL? That's absolutely not true. For a start, the original author can dual- license. This is not a theoretical issue -- it is a multi-million dollar issue. Regards, Pat |