From: Paul Boddie on
On 15 Mai, 04:20, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...(a)geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <a26e8cac-6561-40f6-ae3f-cfe176ecb...(a)>, 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 doesn’t 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 GPL’d 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.

From: John Bokma on
Paul Boddie <paul(a)> 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 - - Perl & Python Development
From: Patrick Maupin on
On May 15, 2:59 pm, Paul Boddie <p...(a)> 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

> 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.

From: Paul Boddie on
On 15 Mai, 03:46, Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)> wrote:
> On May 14, 6:52 pm, Paul Boddie <p...(a)> 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


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.

From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on
In message
<ca0d6fd3-4883-4a82-bbea-a33c283c42a9(a)>, 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)>, 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.