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 14 May 2010 22:02 In message <ab78bcb6-f07c-4d6c-b6aa-961f4ff597e8(a)i9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Patrick Maupin wrote: > On May 14, 6:12 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> > wrote: > >> In message >> <2ff3643b-6ef1-4471-8438-dcba0dc93...(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? > > Only in response. So it's bad when others do it, but not when you do it?
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on 14 May 2010 22:04 In message <548024fc- dd56-48b9-907d-3aa6a722b43c(a)l31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Patrick Maupin wrote: > The confusion that some are showing in this thread about whether source > must be distributed certainly helps to show that as well. What “confusion”? The GPL requires that source must always be offered in some form. Simple as that.
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on 14 May 2010 22:05 In message <5e719bcd-5405-4c34-870b-13e64ef1f818(a)k29g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Patrick Maupin wrote: > 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)r34g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, >> 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. That's nothing to do with the GPL.
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on 14 May 2010 22:07 In message <mailman.173.1273853893.32709.python-list(a)python.org>, Ed Keith wrote: > That is one good reason for choosing to use the GPL, instead of a less > restrictive license. You can license it, for a fee, to someone who wants > to use it in some way that is not allowed under the GPL. Replace “GPL” with “<other licence>” and your statement is no less (or more) true. Funny how a lot of the arguments people keep trying to put forward about the GPL really have nothing to do with the GPL.
From: Patrick Maupin on 14 May 2010 22:15
On May 14, 9:02 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...(a)geek- central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > In message > <ab78bcb6-f07c-4d6c-b6aa-961f4ff59...(a)i9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Patrick > > > > Maupin wrote: > > 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)a21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, > >> 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)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" ... > > >> Havent you co-opted those words yourself? > > > Only in response. > > So its bad when others do it, but not when you do it? I don't claim to have the vision that gave me the last word on freedom, complete with the overarching power to enumerate all the necessary freedoms on heaven and earth. But even if I accept Stallman's definitions of "freedom" it is apparently heretical of me to point out that under other licenses, the original recipient of a piece of software (for example, anybody who downloads any of my software direct from google code) enjoys all four of the freedoms relative to that particular piece of software, and has the additional freedom of not having to worry too much about compliance. BTW, RMS apparently stole "4 freedoms" from FDR. But don't tell anybody. Regards, Pat |