From: Paul Boddie on
On 14 Mai, 09:08, Carl Banks <pavlovevide...(a)> wrote:
> On May 13, 10:59 pm, Steven D'Aprano <st...(a)> wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:18:47 -0700, Carl Banks wrote:
> > > 2. Reimplment the functionality seperately (*cough* PySide)
> > Yes. So what? In what possible way is this an argument against the GPL?


> It's not.  It's an argument that the GPL doesn't do much good.

Right. So nobody got the benefit from Qt under the GPL or PyQt under
the GPL? Even the PySide developers seem hell-bent on picking over the
work of the PyQt developers for ideas, although they obviously won't
touch the code. Nokia seem to have accrued tremendous benefit from the
existence of PyQt because I rather doubt that anyone would have
bothered rolling a set of mature, usable Python bindings for Qt now
had some not existed already and proved that dynamic languages are
worth supporting.

> Arguments against the GPL are found elsewhere in this thread, I don't
> need to repeat them here.

Yes, don't bother. They fit in rather well with the comment you made

From: Patrick Maupin on
On May 14, 8:26 am, Paul Boddie <p...(a)> wrote:
> On 13 Mai, 22:10, Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)> 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:

Before, you were busy pointing me at the GPL FAQ as authoritative.
When I show where the FAQ says that you should distribute source if
you give somebody a CD, you point me at a document which is obviously
designed for the Ciscos of the world.

> 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.

Did I *ever* say that Ubuntu was violating the GPL. No. Do I believe
that the practices of any binary Linux distribution that fits on a
single CD make it easy for the downloader/burner to violate the GPL.
> > 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.

Well, you conveniently ignore sections of your bible (for example, the
part of the FAQ where it says you should distribute source with
binary) and reach for more obscure scrolls whenever the real world
gets in the way of your fantasy. Even here, you don't bother to quote
what you wrote, which would show I am just responding to your outrage.

> > 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.

There are multiple sides to every discussion, and everybody comes to
the table with biases. If you honestly think that you are not biased,
then you are deluding yourself. If you realize that you are biased,
then you will also come to realize that my translations are equally

> one gets the impression that you have quite a chip on your
> shoulder about the FSF and RMS.

I can take them or leave them until they and their followers start
spouting damaging nonsense. Many businesses were scared to death of
FOSS for many years, and I lay the blame squarely on RMS's shoulders.
You see only the good he has done; it is tempered by quite a bit of

> 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.

I'm not the one who keeps spouting that it "gives" freedoms (or even
privileges) that copyright would have taken away. That's complete
bullshit. As I said, copyright *allows* the author to control various
aspects of his work ("take away freedoms" in GPL-speak), and all
licenses (including the GPL) explicitly state which aspects the author
plans to control. The only way the author can really exert control is
to sue or credibly threaten to sue. I can actually point to multiple
instances of GPL authors suing, and people like you crowing about how
great it is that the GPL stands up in court, but I don't actually
recall any suits about violations of the MIT or Apache licenses. So,
yes, I firmly believe that when somebody slaps a GPL license on their
software (and especially if they sign the copyrights over to the FSF)
they are trying to signal that they are willing to go to court to
protect their rights. This is no different than when Microsoft sues
an infringer, and is not an evil thing, but it is definitely something
to be aware of. The easiest way to not get tangled in that kind of
lawsuit is to just make sure that you never distribute any software
with a commercial-type license on it (including the GPL).

> And I don't think it improves any argument you may have by projecting
> notions of "morality" or "immorality" onto what I have written,

But you're arguing from a moral standpoint.

> especially when I have deliberately chosen to use other terms which
> avoid involving such notions

Yes, but you're making exactly the same arguments as others, just
changing the name.

> or by equating the copyleft licences
> with criminal enterprises ("pyramid scheme"),

Well, that may be a bit OTT. What I really should say is that the GPL
license has a "selfish gene." It tries really hard to propagate
itself, at the expense of the genes of other licenses.

> or by suggesting that I
> endorse criminal endeavours.

Hmmm, don't recall doing that. If I did, I certainly apologize.

> But if that's what you have left to say
> at this point, then I think you probably are "done".

Well, I thought I was before, but then the discussion about
downloading an ISO and burning it and giving it to a friend came up.
This may be technically allowable under the license, but nothing you
or anybody else has written has yet proved that to me.


From: Patrick Maupin on
On May 14, 6:12 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...(a)geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <2ff3643b-6ef1-4471-8438-
> dcba0dc93...(a)>, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> > 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)>, 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?

Only in response. But hey, it's not just me; even Stallman says that
MIT-licensed software is "free software", just not "Free Software".

From: Patrick Maupin on
On May 14, 6:13 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...(a)geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message
> <2b17ee77-0e49-4a97-994c-7582f86c0...(a)>, Patrick
> Maupin wrote:
> > On May 13, 10:06 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> > <l...(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.

If you mean "that's out of the control of the GPL" I agree. But the
whole point of the discussion has been about how people can't take GPL
licensed code proprietary, making enhancements, etc. and I'm just
pointing out that this doesn't apply to the original author. Someone
can decide they aren't making enough money under the GPL and stop
distributing that way, and make all their enhancements proprietary, if
they are the original author.

From: mk on
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Are you implying that by distributing your libraries under the MIT or
> Apache licence, no linking is required? That's a cool trick, can you
> explain how it works please?

Err.. Linking statically with library in question? Which excludes LGPL
for legal reasons and doesn't exclude MIT/Apache license for legal reasons?

(this is obviously orthogonal to a technical question why static linking
should be used sparringly if at all)