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: Steven D'Aprano on 15 May 2010 01:45 On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:18:09 -0700, Ed Keith wrote: > But if I release it with the Boost license, while technically I can > release it with the GPL tomorrow, in practice everyone will use the > previously released Boost licensed version. That's a very interesting experiment to perform. Perhaps you should dual- licence some library and see which gets more downloads and users? -- Steven
From: Steven D'Aprano on 15 May 2010 01:50 On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:37:14 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote: > I don't actually > recall any suits about violations of the MIT or Apache licenses. The most obvious example was that the University of Berkley counter-sued Unix System Laboratories over USL's infringement of the BSD licence. Admittedly this wasn't the MIT or Apache licence, and the circumstances were fairly special. It's a fairly safe bet that anyone who is distributing their software under such a licence is sending an implicit signal that they don't intend to sue. But it does demonstrate that MIT- style licences aren't the same as public domain -- they do impose obligations on the recipient, even if those obligations are much lighter than those of the GPL. -- Steven
From: Patrick Maupin on 15 May 2010 01:56 On May 15, 12:50 am, Steven D'Aprano <st...(a)REMOVE-THIS- cybersource.com.au> wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:37:14 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote: > The most obvious example was that the University of Berkley counter-sued > Unix System Laboratories over USL's infringement of the BSD licence. Well, I specifically excluded BSD for this reason. But in any case, I'd be willing to place a small wager that it's the *only* (rather than merely the "most obvious") example you can find... > Admittedly this wasn't the MIT or Apache licence, and the circumstances > were fairly special. It's a fairly safe bet that anyone who is > distributing their software under such a licence is sending an implicit > signal that they don't intend to sue. Right. > But it does demonstrate that MIT- > style licences aren't the same as public domain -- they do impose > obligations on the recipient, even if those obligations are much lighter > than those of the GPL. And I certainly have never deliberately attempted to mislead on this point. Regards, Pat
From: Steven D'Aprano on 15 May 2010 02:34 On Fri, 14 May 2010 19:17:20 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote: > On May 14, 9:04 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...(a)geek- > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: >> In message <548024fc- >> dd56-48b9-907d-3aa6a722b...(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. > > Right, but when I explained that that requirement also applies to Joe, > who downloaded an ISO from Ubuntu and burned a CD and gave it away, no > less than 3 people jumped in to "correct" me. The confusion is over what form that offer may be, and what counts as distribution. Your claim seems plausible, but whether it is correct or not is not so obvious. I would say that, given the lack of any lawsuits against individuals and Linux User Groups, the *intention* of the GPL is to allow individuals to act as a proxy between the end-user and the actual distributor (in this case, Ubuntu) without taking on the obligation to provide source code. Looking at the FAQs, my comments in square brackets: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code [e.g. as Canonical does with Ubuntu], the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. [This is available on their website.] When users non- commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, [e.g. I download the Ubuntu install DVD and make a copy for my friend] they must pass along a copy of this written offer. [I am obliged to tell my friend they can get the Ubuntu written offer from Ubuntu's website, and pass it on directly if asked] This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer. The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you. [In other words, if I give Fred a copy of Ubuntu, it is Canonical and not me who is responsible for providing the source code to Fred if he asks for it.] Okay, it's not the licence itself, but the FAQ pretty much makes the intention clear. Merely handing over an Ubuntu DVD to a friend is not a violation of the GPL. -- Steven
From: Patrick Maupin on 15 May 2010 03:01
On May 15, 1:34 am, Steven D'Aprano <st...(a)REMOVE-THIS- cybersource.com.au> wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2010 19:17:20 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote: > > On May 14, 9:04 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...(a)geek- > > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > >> In message <548024fc- > >> dd56-48b9-907d-3aa6a722b...(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. > > > Right, but when I explained that that requirement also applies to Joe, > > who downloaded an ISO from Ubuntu and burned a CD and gave it away, no > > less than 3 people jumped in to "correct" me. > > The confusion is over what form that offer may be, and what counts as > distribution. > > Your claim seems plausible, but whether it is correct or not is not so > obvious. Exactly. And when people say it's obviously incorrect, they're obviously incorrect, because if it were obvious, it would have been answered correctly by now :-) > I would say that, given the lack of any lawsuits against > individuals and Linux User Groups, the *intention* of the GPL is to allow > individuals to act as a proxy between the end-user and the actual > distributor (in this case, Ubuntu) without taking on the obligation to > provide source code. Yes, and as I said, lawsuits against individuals would be bad for business (as business is defined in the GPL world). > Looking at the FAQs, my comments in square brackets: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid Well, for one thing, that section is only *directly* relevant to GPL v2. For another thing, it is only directly relevant to Canonical's obligations, not Joe's. [Text snipped; part of d'Aprano interpretation left] > [I am obliged to tell my friend they can get the Ubuntu written > offer from Ubuntu's website, and pass it on directly if asked] Sure, and that's *exactly* what I said isn't going to happen in a lot of cases, because it takes a careful reading of the license and FAQ for someone to realize that. The download button at Ubuntu tells you to make more copies (your "rights") without telling you about the source code (your "obligations"). Which is perfectly legal, but someone who isn't reading carefully could easily give a CD to a friend without the offer of source. > This means that people who did not get the binaries directly > from you can still receive copies of the source code, along > with the written offer. More obligations on the part of Canonical; note, however, that Canonical's obligation to distribute source to a CD that you gave to a friend may not even be long enough to cover 3 years after the time you gave the CD to your friend. > The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party > is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way > can order the source code from you. [In other words, if I give > Fred a copy of Ubuntu, it is Canonical and not me who is responsible > for providing the source code to Fred if he asks for it.] > > Okay, it's not the licence itself, but the FAQ pretty much makes the > intention clear. Yes, it does. The FAQ part you quote is for Canonical and for v2. The one for the user handing over the CD still says (for v3): "I downloaded just the binary from the net. If I distribute copies, do I have to get the source and distribute that too? Yes. The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you received a written offer for source code is quite limited." But, even if you fall under that limited exception, you *still* have to make the written offer, and I stand by my assertion that even that token act is not happening in lots of cases as we speak. > Merely handing over an Ubuntu DVD to a friend is not a > violation of the GPL. .... as long as you make the written offer. Regards, Pat |