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: Paul Boddie on 15 May 2010 15:59 On 15 Mai, 04:20, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...(a)geek- central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > In message <a26e8cac-6561-40f6-ae3f-cfe176ecb...(a)l31g2000yqm.googlegroups..com>, Paul Boddie wrote: > > Although people can argue that usage of the GPL prevents people from > > potentially contributing because they would not be able to sell > > proprietary versions of the software ... > > It doesnt prevent them from selling proprietary versions of their own > contributions, any more than any other licence does. I already mentioned this several days ago, upon which it was regarded as not addressing some complaint or other. You own your own work, but if you release that work to someone and it makes use of a GPL-licensed work, then the user must be able to deal with the work according to the terms of the GPL. > The fact that their contribution may not be much use without the rest of > that GPLd code is entirely another matter. It was their choice to build on > the work of others; they could have reinvented it from scratch themselves.. Yes. I mentioned this before: WebKit (or probably more specifically WebCore) is an example of both originally building on GPL-licensed code, and also building on permissively licensed code. The code specifically belonging to WebKit and its predecessor was never GPL- licensed itself. My point about a platform vendor choosing to undertake the multiple man-year task of rewriting an existing, mature GPL-licensed library purely so that people are then able to sell proprietary software is grounded in the observation that if people were content to make their source code available for their products on such a platform, the GPL would be a satisfactory basis for such activities: they own their own code, can license it permissively (but compatibly with the GPL), and the sources remain available; they don't need a "weaker" copyleft licence or a permissive licence to do any of this. Now, since it is unlikely that a business is going to spend money on a project that doesn't change the situation in any practical sense - that people are content with having their source code available to their users, but now (after several man-years of effort) can link to a permissively licensed (or weak-copyleft licensed) library - the actual motivation emerges for choosing the LGPL or a permissive licence as the basis for the platform's licensing: to permit the only thing that the GPL does not, which is to let people release their software and not commit to offering the source code; to permit, in effect, the delivery of proprietary software. Any claim that a licensing change is needed merely to let people develop open source applications on the platform is dishonest, especially as the "about" page for PySide spells out the licensing objective. Take away the proprietary software requirement and you might as well use the GPL. Paul
From: John Bokma on 15 May 2010 16:22 Paul Boddie <paul(a)boddie.org.uk> writes: > especially as the "about" page for PySide spells out the licensing > objective. Take away the proprietary software requirement and you > might as well use the GPL. Thank you for mentioning PySide, I wasn't aware of this project. -- John Bokma j3b Hacking & Hiking in Mexico - http://johnbokma.com/ http://castleamber.com/ - Perl & Python Development
From: Patrick Maupin on 15 May 2010 16:59 On May 15, 2:59 pm, Paul Boddie <p...(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: [Rest of the post, that contains points previously debated and well- refuted, snipped] > Any claim that a licensing change is needed merely to let people > develop open source applications on the platform is dishonest, See, there you go again, impugning the motives and character of others. Is it really that surprising that sometimes others get annoyed by this and start to assume things about your personality that you disagree with? > especially as the "about" page for PySide spells out the licensing > objective. Yes, it does: "PySide is licensed under the LGPL version 2.1 license, allowing both Free/Open source software and proprietary software development." > Take away the proprietary software requirement and you > might as well use the GPL. You obviously agree that PySide was coded as a direct replacement for PyQt, for licensing reasons, so certainly there's a perception that *something* is wrong with PyQt's license. Let's see what the PyQt license page has to say about it: PyQt is available under the following licenses. * GNU General Public License v2 * GNU General Public License v3 * PyQt Commercial License Hmm, the only thing that PySide seems to allow that is missing from this list seems to be the "O" in "FOSS". But of course, you already knew that, because I already explained it, and as you've told me that you read and think about everything very carefully, obviously your objective in repeating this nonsense is to mislead and confuse. Regards, Pat
From: Paul Boddie on 15 May 2010 18:03 On 15 Mai, 03:46, Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 14, 6:52 pm, Paul Boddie <p...(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: > > And suggesting that people have behavioural disorders ("Or because > > have OCD?") might be a source of amusement to you, or may be a neat > > debating trick in certain circles you admire, but rest assured that I > > am neither amused nor impressed, nor are others likely to be. > > That was in an honest response to a question you asked "Really, if at > this point you think I'm playing games with you." where I explained > that I don't know what to think, because often, when you claimed to be > addressing my point, you would bring up other red herrings and spend > more time on those, and often assign positions to me that I never > took. You can spare us the excuses. As I said, I was attempting to be thorough and to explore all possible means of distribution, not least because this was not your original point - you were originally upset about Mr Finney's remark, which you still don't accept, but there's probably no convincing you now - and were then upset at the FSF definition of a work "based on" or derived from another, leading you to talk about various strategies for defending potential GPL violations in the course of copyright infringement litigation. At this point, it isn't unreasonable to think that you will think of some other objection to the GPL which you will then have everyone explore. I have pointed out at least once the section of the GPLv3 which could reasonably permit someone to receive a binary distribution and there not be an immediate licence violation, plus an FAQ entry which more or less addresses the very situation you describe, and I even provided a link to a discussion of these very issues on the debian-legal mailing list. You can repeat as often as you like that you don't believe it, but I have explained my understanding of precisely the "giving CD to a friend" situation. To summarise: your friend gets the sources from the same place as the binaries, which is from you. (The SFLC document seems to treat section 6(d) of GPLv3 as being about Internet distribution, but given that the term "network server" is only mentioned after two sentences, and only then in the conditional form, I regard the FAQ entry I referred to as offering relevant guidance, and even others [*] have considered the text to be subject to similar interpretation.) [*] http://www.gerv.net/hacking/gplv3/draft3/ For the GPLv2 the requirement of a written offer appears to be more dominant, and I believe the physical media actually shipped by Ubuntu is accompanied by such an offer. If Ubuntu encourages others to share media (produced in whichever fashion) or software without any written offer then it is, as I remarked before, a matter that should be discussed with them. Yes, it is unfortunate that the obligations are not communicated, and that is one reason why there is a successor to that licence, but it merely indicates that the balance of obligation and tolerance in the licence, maintained without enabling the widespread and malicious circumvention of the licence, is difficult to achieve. It doesn't invalidate the intent of the licence, and if anything it validates the adoption of GPLv3 in preference to GPLv2. [...] > (BTW, IMO this was one of your better posts in terms of tone and being > on-point, etc., and I appreciate that.) As I said before, spare me the condescension. Making a remark that someone has a behavioural disorder - a matter, whether true or not, that should have no influence on the course of any discussion - especially when that person has attempted to provide explanations for every quibble spontaneously raised over the course of several days, not only indicates a certain level of hypocrisy, but it indicates that as far as you are concerned any remark about a person's mental health or well-being is fair game if it serves to belittle that person's standing and ridicule what that person has written. Paul
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on 15 May 2010 23:05
In message <ca0d6fd3-4883-4a82-bbea-a33c283c42a9(a)d12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, Patrick Maupin wrote: > On May 14, 9:21 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...(a)geek- > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > >> In message <mailman.180.1273860694.32709.python-l...(a)python.org>, Ed >> Keith wrote: >> >>> I just refuse to use [the GPL] in any code for a client, because I >>> do not want to require someone who does not know source code from Morse >>> code code to figure out what they need to do to avoid violating the >>> license. >> >> Why don't you just put the source code on the same disc you send them, >> and tell them to pass copies of the entire disc to anyone they want? > > What you would really have to tell them is "don't pass along the > program *unless* you copy the whole disk." That's no longer a > courtesy -- that's a mandate. By not using the GPL, Ed avoids having > to mandate to his customer how to treat the software he has delivered > to them. But that's what “copyright” means, it means “right to copy”. It's his right to impose terms on how copies of stuff he created are treated. |