On Friday 07 January 2011 12:59:20 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 17:50 +0530, jtd wrote:
That the only thing that might yet save JAVA is the GPL
save JAVA from what?
you have not answered this point
From losing foss developers.
One might note that with the sale of Novell's patents, GPLV3 like terms seems to be the only option for all other non BSDish open licences.
what does this mean?
GPLV3 requires assignment of patent rights automatically to all downstream distributors.
Much of your arguments (except one) is about (1) expecting others to behave
huh? who am I expecting to behave? and behave how?
- the guy who takes bsd code into gpl and
- the guy who takes his contribution private (pseudo gplsts)
In both cases you want him to behave in a way that the licence does not require. If you intend to prevent 1 you will have to add a derivative clause that requires release of derivative works under BSD licence. So now you will be rewarding bad behaviour. If someone takes the code closed it's ok, but if he takes it gpl you wont allow
when did I say that - he has the right to close his copy and the right to make it gpl. I also have the right to try and make him see sense and flame him if he doesnt. But I do not have the right to prevent him from doing bad things like this.
If it's your code you do have a right and a responsibilty too. It's entirely your chioice. Same with the folks who use the GPL.
and (2) the assumption that an improvment is not desired by the original developer.
where did I make that assumption - I am on record saying that a major motivation for open sourcing code is the hope that people will step in improve the software.
How does the software improve without contributing back?. If a recipient takes his contibution private, inspite of deriving his work from foss he is without a shadow of doubt nullifying the major reason. Which partly is what the gpl prevents.
well, it may come as a surprise to you that there are thousands of BSD licensed projects where people contribute back - sometimes in very large numbers. In fact the normal method of contribution is contribution back. And it is voluntary
Who is disputing this?
- I have seen some instances
of modifying and distributing a closed source copy - and then contributing back part or whole of the closed portion.
So how is " part" = "whole". And how is "some" = "All" BTW if you ship a closed GPL package, and contribute back to head, alongwith a link to head with the closed, there is no problem at all.
The problem is "part" and "some".
With BSD you are, by not specifically asking for contribution thru clauses in the licence, telling the downstream guy I dont care.
With gpl you are saying I care, so dont touch the damned thing if you dont want to contribute your code.
I am a firm believer in persuasion over force
Fair enough.
I fail to see how (1) holds in the light of the above list. The whole point of opening your code is the desire for improvment, so proposing (2) as an argument against gpl seems rather strange.
I haven't proposed this
The exception is BSD not benefiting from literal copying of gpl code. Note that reading and reimplementing gpl code is a viable alternative,
are we allowed to do that? I wanted to port RT to python/django, but I saw GPL and was discouraged. If you can certify that I can do this and license it under BSD I will be forever grateful to you
You can read and reimplement it in a different way. You are not copying (or transcribing), which is what copyright is about.
suppose I take RT, study the code and implement the whole thing in python/django, is that a copy? or a reimplementation.
Very very much a reimplementation.
As far I can see the problem would lie in the database structure - I would have to restructure the database to suit django, but that could be interpreted as a copy?
Even if you exactly replicated the db structure, it would not be a copy. A database structure would be analogous to a filing cabinet. I am am sure nobody could sue me for copying the "method" of organising a filing cabinet or the internal organisation of the contents in a filing cabinet.
In the case of GPL software, reimplementing code is very clearly not copying.
so I can go ahead?
IMO 100%
One assumes that patents is a non issue.
http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/openbsd-misc/2007/11/9/399443
Note: I abhor closed works derived from foss. I could not care less about an independent closed implementation of any code.
I abhor both
-- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/