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: Steven D'Aprano on 14 May 2010 01:59 On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:18:47 -0700, Carl Banks wrote: > The thing you GPL fanbois refuse to understand or accept is that, in the > real world, a person or company who doesn't want to open source their > "derivative work" will only rarely be forced to by the GPL. They'll work > around it instead, vast majority of the time. They could: > > 1. Derive their work from a project with a license that grants the user > more freedom > 2. Reimplment the functionality seperately (*cough* PySide) Yes. So what? In what possible way is this an argument against the GPL? If I offer to mow your lawn for $20, and you refuse, I don't have to force my services onto you. You can mow your lawn yourself, or find somebody who will do it for $10, or find some kind generous soul who will do it for free under an MIT licence. If you don't want the obligations of the GPL, nobody is going to force you to distribute or derive from the GPLed software. If you're not willing to meet my conditions to use my software, then I don't want you using my software. Go write your own, or find somebody else who will do it for a fee, or for free. What you see as a disadvantage of the GPL is a feature, not a bug. You seem to be under the impression that the only public good developers should care about is maximising the number of people who create derivative works from your project. That's obviously not so in the real world, where vast numbers of developers release software under closed- source licences, or don't release it to the public at all, and it's certainly not the case for people who use the GPL. The FSF even has a FAQ about that exact point. > 3. Ignore the license This is a crime under copyright law, and there have been many instances of companies who thought they could ignore the GPL learning different. -- Steven
From: Steven D'Aprano on 14 May 2010 02:08 On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:10:09 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote: > The broken window fallacy is about labor that could have been spent > elsewhere if someone else had done something differently. The only time > that comes into play in my programming life is when I have to recode > something that is nominally available under the GPL, so I'm not sure > this is really making the point you think it is. You've never had to recode something because it was nominally available under a proprietary licence that you (or your client) was unwilling to use? Lucky you! The GPL ensures that once software has entered the commons (and therefore available for all), it can never be removed from the commons. The MIT licence does not. Now, you might argue that in practice once software is released under an MIT licence, it is unlikely to ever disappear from the commons. Well, perhaps, but if so, that's despite and not because of the licence. In practice, I believe most MIT-licenced code never even makes it into the commons in the first place. I'm willing to predict that the majority of code you've written for paying customers (as opposed to specifically for open source projects) has disappeared into their code base, never to be seen by anyone outside of the company. Am I right? -- Steven
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on 14 May 2010 07:12 In message <2ff3643b-6ef1-4471-8438- dcba0dc93c24(a)a21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Patrick Maupin wrote: > On May 13, 10:04 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro > <ldo(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 people's 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" ... Haven't you “co-opted” those words yourself?
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on 14 May 2010 07:13 In message <2b17ee77-0e49-4a97-994c-7582f86c0ba9(a)r34g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Patrick Maupin wrote: > On May 13, 10:06 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro > <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > >> Under the GPL, everybody has exactly the same freedoms. > > That's absolutely not true. For a start, the original author can dual- > license. That's nothing to do with the GPL.
From: Paul Boddie on 14 May 2010 09:26
On 13 Mai, 22:10, Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > [...] Just to deal with your Ubuntu "high horse" situation first, you should take a look at the following for what people regard to be the best practices around GPL-licensed software distribution: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html If you still think Ubuntu are violating the GPL or encouraging others to do so, feel free to contact their lawyers who I'm sure will be very interested to hear from you. > When the leader of your religion bandies terms like "freedom" and > "evil" about, what do you expect? Seriously? I thought you were "done". I guess you are: again, we have the usual courting of public outrage by labelling stuff you don't like as "religion" - presumably not the "right one", either - when it is no such thing. [...] > My primary agenda is to explain that RMS does, in fact, have an > agenda, and the GPL was designed as a tool in furtherance of that > agenda, and that while the agenda does have some arguably noble goals, > before using the GPL people should understand its consequences both > for good and bad, and make their own determination about whether it's > the right license for their project. Reading through your "translations" of what are effectively honest summaries, one gets the impression that you have quite a chip on your shoulder about the FSF and RMS. Referring to the GPL as a "commercial" licence and stating that it (as opposed to any other licence or even the word "copyright" followed by a name) is a threat to sue people, presumably appealing to the libertarian crowd with a judicious mention of "government" just to fan the flames of supposed injustice, really does triangulate where you are coming from. So, yes, we're now rather more aware of what your agenda is, I think. And I don't think it improves any argument you may have by projecting notions of "morality" or "immorality" onto what I have written, especially when I have deliberately chosen to use other terms which avoid involving such notions, or by equating the copyleft licences with criminal enterprises ("pyramid scheme"), or by suggesting that I endorse criminal endeavours. But if that's what you have left to say at this point, then I think you probably are "done". Paul |