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 14 May 2010 09:35 On 14 Mai, 03:56, a...(a)pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote: > > IMO this only makes sense if one agrees that people should not be allowed > to sell software for money. Absent that agreement, your argument about > freedom seems rather limited. You'll have to explain this to me because I don't quite follow your assertion. You can sell copyleft-licensed software, although I accept that you can't set an arbitrarily high price on the sources for someone who has already acquired a binary distribution. Paul
From: Paul Boddie on 14 May 2010 09:47 On 14 Mai, 05:35, Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 is a set of exceptions applied to version 3 of the GPL, done this way so that the exceptions machinery of the GPL can be used to remove them if desired, as opposed to getting into the business of allowing people to relicense works from the LGPL to the GPL, as was the case with previous versions of these licences. You don't even have to read as far as the first clause of the LGPL terms to be told this, but I guess there's more "sport" in taking cheap shots at the authors than reading three lines down from the top of the text. Paul
From: Patrick Maupin on 14 May 2010 10:56 On May 14, 8:47 am, Paul Boddie <p...(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: > On 14 Mai, 05:35, Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 is a set of exceptions applied to version 3 of the GPL, done this > way so that the exceptions machinery of the GPL can be used to remove > them if desired, as opposed to getting into the business of allowing > people to relicense works from the LGPL to the GPL, as was the case > with previous versions of these licences. You don't even have to read > as far as the first clause of the LGPL terms to be told this, but I > guess there's more "sport" in taking cheap shots at the authors than > reading three lines down from the top of the text. > > Paul That's not a cheap shot. It's a (programmer) technical description of how the licenses interact, along with an opinion that it would be easier to read otherwise, along with a quoted snippet that shows (at least to me) that these are really quite complicated licenses. The confusion that some are showing in this thread about whether source must be distributed certainly helps to show that as well. Now, it may well be, and probably is, that the licenses are as simple as they can be for the desired effect, but that doesn't make them simple. Regards, Pat
From: Patrick Maupin on 14 May 2010 10:57 On May 14, 9:10 am, Ed Keith <e_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > --- On Thu, 5/13/10, Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > From: Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)gmail.com> > > Subject: Re: Picking a license > > To: python-l...(a)python.org > > Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 11:35 PM > > 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?) > > But if my client give someone else a copy of the binary I gave them, they are now in violation. I do not want to put my client in this position. > > When using the GPL or LGPL you can do anything you want as long as you do not let anyone else use your work, but if you let someone else have a copy of you work you are putting them in a position where that can easily/inadvertently violate the law. I do not want to put clients in legal jeopardy, so I do not use GPL, or LGPLed code. Good point. I guess I haven't distributed something linked in a while (really just Python), so I tend to forget that aspect of it. Regards, Pat
From: Patrick Maupin on 14 May 2010 11:04
On May 14, 1:08 am, Steven D'Aprano <st...(a)REMOVE-THIS- cybersource.com.au> wrote: > 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! Don't be silly. That's why I started writing open source software in the first place. But if I start writing stuff to put in the commons with strings removed, why would I bother with a license that just adds some strings back? > The GPL ensures that once software has entered the commons (and therefore > available for all), it can never be removed from the commons. No it doesn't. It just insures that if people actually *distribute* the software to others, they have to distribute the source. In any case, for software to remain in the commons, it has to be available where people can get to it. Somebody has to care enough to maintain a repository, or it has to be good enough for people to distribute. > The MIT licence does not. The only difference is that somebody has to care enough to maintain a repository, or it has to be good enough for people to distribute *along with source*. > Now, you might argue that in practice once software is > released under an MIT licence, it is unlikely to ever disappear from the > commons. Depends on the software. See above. > Well, perhaps, but if so, that's despite and not because of the > licence. Same thing for GPLed software. See above. > In practice, I believe most MIT-licenced code never even makes it into > the commons in the first place. Interesting assertion. > 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? That's true, but what on earth does that have to do with the MIT license? Regards, Pat |