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: Ben Finney on 8 May 2010 21:42 aahz(a)pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes: > In article <e2467908-621e-4ed4-a549-48160ad649a3(a)b7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, > Carl Banks <pavlovevidence(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >GPL is about fighting a holy war against commercial software. > > And really, that's a Good Thing. We wouldn't have Python, to some > extent, were it not for Stallman and his crusade. That doesn't mean we > should slavishly worship him, though. +1. -- \ “A child of five could understand this. Fetch me a child of | `\ five.” —Groucho Marx | _o__) | Ben Finney
From: Patrick Maupin on 8 May 2010 22:34 On May 8, 8:41 pm, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...(a)benfinney.id.au> wrote: > Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > On May 8, 2:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano <st...(a)REMOVE-THIS- > > cybersource.com.au> wrote: > > > Which brings us back full circle to Ben's position, which you took > > > exception to. > > [ ] > > > To me, the clear implication of the blanket statement that you have to > > use the GPL if you care at all about users is that anybody who doesn't > > use the GPL is uncaring. I think that's a silly attitude [ ] > > Fortunately, neither that silly blanket statement nor its implication > are represented in any of my messages in this thread. Hmm, I must have misunderstood this: "Unless you place such a low value the freedom of your users that you'd allow proprietary derivatives of your work to remove the freedoms you've taken care to grant, then you should choose a copyleft license like the GPL." To me, placing "such a low value on the freedom of [my] users" sounds like I'm ready to consign them to slavery or something, so I certainly originally viewed this as a "blanket" (e.g. unqualified) "statement" (well, that should be obvious) that I have to use the GPL "if [I] care at all about [my] users". > I hope that helps. Well, perhaps you meant less by your wording of "a low value on the freedom" than could be read into it, just as Aahz and I meant less by "forced" than you apparently read into that. I think we all have more or less accurate understandings of the differences between GPL and permissive licenses, but only disagree somewhat on how important the various features are, and at the end of the day we all come to some reasonably nuanced view of how to proceed with our projects. One thing I realized that I didn't cover in my earlier posts is that I think that for a lot of library-type projects, LGPL v2.1 is a really fine license, offering a great balance of competing interests. I view the new licensing on QT from Nokia (commercial, GPL v3, or LGPL v2.1) as a good example of a balanced strategy. Regards, Pat
From: Paul Rubin on 8 May 2010 22:58 Carl Banks <pavlovevidence(a)gmail.com> writes: > People who esteem their users give them freedom to use software > however they see fit, including combining it with proprietary > software. Huh???? That makes no sense at all. Why should a standard like that be expected from free software developers, when it isn't expected from the makers of the proprietary software who you're proposing deserve to rake in big bucks from locking up other people's work that they didn't pay for? I've got no problem writing stuff for inclusion in proprietary products. But I do that as a professional, which means I expect to get paid for it. And I think you have the "esteem" issue backwards. Users who esteem developers who write and share software for community benefit, should not whine and pout that the largesse doesn't extend as far as inviting monopolistic corporations to lock it away from further sharing.
From: Paul Rubin on 8 May 2010 23:03 "Martin P. Hellwig" <martin.hellwig(a)dcuktec.org> writes: > I fail to see what is morally wrong with it. When I ,as the author, > share my work to the public, I should have made peace with the fact > that I, for all intends and purposes, lost control over its use. Does the same thing apply to Microsoft? If I get a copy of MS Office, do you think I should be able to incorporate its code into my own products for repackaging and sale any way that I want, without their having any say? If not, why should Microsoft be entitled to do that with software that -I- write? Is there something in the water making people think these inequitable things? If Microsoft's licenses are morally respectable then so is the GPL.
From: Paul Rubin on 8 May 2010 23:12
Steven D'Aprano <steve(a)REMOVE-THIS-cybersource.com.au> writes: > For the record, I've published software under an MIT licence because I > judged the cost of the moral hazard introduced by encouraging freeloaders > to be less than the benefits of having a more permissive licence that > encourages freeloading and therefore attracts more users. For other > software, I might judge that the cost/benefit ratio falls in a different > place, and hence choose the GPL. I don't know if it counts as a moral hazard but some programmers simply don't want to do proprietary product development for free. That's why Linux (GPL) has far more developers (and consequentially far more functionality and more users) than the free versions of BSD, and GCC (GPL) has far more developers than Python. Of course the BSD license did allow Bill Gates and Steve Jobs to become billionaires off the work off the developers who actually wrote the Berkeley code and are now struggling to make their rent. But at least those developers can be proud that the Microsoft and Apple DRM empires benefited so much from their efforts. THAT's a level of self-sacrifice that I can do without. Note, "permissive license" is a Microsoft propaganda term from what I can tell. "Forbidding forbidden" is how I like to think of the GPL. |