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: Patrick Maupin on 14 May 2010 22:58 On May 14, 8:58 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...(a)geek- central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > In message <mailman.158.1273844352.32709.python-l...(a)python.org>, Ed Keith > wrote: > > > Yes, under the GPL every one has one set of freedoms, under the MIT or > > Boost license every one has more freedoms. Under other licenses they have > > fewer freedoms. > > But what about the freedom to take away other peoples freedom? Is that > really freedom? Only if they love or fear you enough to not try to overthrow you. Otherwise, you have to be always on your guard. It's still probably a pretty good life.
From: Steven D'Aprano on 14 May 2010 22:59 On Fri, 14 May 2010 06:39:05 -0700, Ed Keith wrote: > Yes, under the GPL every one has one set of freedoms, under the MIT or > Boost license every one has more freedoms. Under other licenses they > have fewer freedoms. I think this talk about freedoms is dangerously incomplete, and is confusing the issue rather than shedding more light. Both licences grant the same positive freedoms (freedom to do something). MIT-style licences grant permission to: * make copies of the work; * make derivative works based on the work; and * distribute those derivative works to others. The GPL grants precisely the same three rights. There is no difference in the rights granted. The MIT licence imposes an obligation on the licencee: * you must include a copy of the licence and copyright notice with the work and/or any derivative works. The GPL adds a further obligation: * any derivative works must also be licenced under the GPL. If we want to talk about "freedoms", rather than rights and obligations, we need to distinguish between positive freedoms (freedom to do something) and negative freedoms (freedoms from something) and not just blithely mix them up. -- Steven
From: Patrick Maupin on 14 May 2010 23:00 On May 14, 9:17 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...(a)geek- central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > In message > <e5a031a3-d097-4a63-b87a-7ddfb9e90...(a)n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, Patrick > > Maupin wrote: > > After all, lots of software ideas proved their worth in proprietary > > systems, and then were later cloned by FOSS developers. > > And vice versa. Everybody, whether working in closed or open environments, > builds on the work of everybody else. Rsync pioneered the idea of doing > transfers of incremental changes to a large file across a network without > being able to have the two versions of the file on the same machine to do a > direct side-by-side comparison; Microsoft copied the idea in more recent > versions of its server software. Andrew Tridgell could easily have patented > his idea, but he chose not to. > > Apple pioneered the idea of using 3D graphics hardware to do window > compositing on the desktop; the Compiz folks went on to figure out how to do > this efficiently. Microsoft also copied the idea, but forgot the > efficiently part. > > Free Software also benefits from networking effects that are not available > to proprietary developers. The resources available to proprietary developers > are proportional to the size of the company they work for; typically they do > not share software with competitors. Whereas the Free Software community is > like one huge company in this regard, available to freely pass ideas and > code back and forth. This has led to the creation of ideas that proprietary > companies simply cannot match. Well said. Pat
From: Aahz on 14 May 2010 23:55 In article <a8356d56-b413-4967-9680-e1be58c25821(a)k19g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Paul Boddie <paul(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: >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. You can't really sell Open Source software in any practical way; someone will always undercut you once it's out in the wild. You can only sell support for the software, which is entirely different. -- Aahz (aahz(a)pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n nx prgrmmng.
From: Aahz on 15 May 2010 00:00
In article <93d67bd9-6721-4759-a3de-412b95b29a93(a)c11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, Paul Boddie <paul(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: > >Whether or not one is comfortable with copyleft-style licences, there >clearly is a benefit in providing access to software governed by those >licences. ....and this newsgroup surely is evidence that there is benefit to Open Source software that isn't copyleft. -- Aahz (aahz(a)pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n nx prgrmmng. |