On Thursday 06 January 2011 16:10:35 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 14:49 +0530, jtd wrote:
How does the conditions on which an open licence
is based change
with a country?
I have not really gone into this. I did note that CC tries to give
country specific licenses. One possible use case would be a country
that prohibits export of a particular category of software beyond
it's borders (and makes it a criminal offence). One would need a
few extra clauses in the license to deal with this.
I cannot really answer the stuff below because I do not understand
Can you clarify:
One might note that,
much of M$ problem creation capabilities arose from the freedom
granted by BSD (or similiar licenced) code.
what do you mean by 'problem creation capabilities'?
Mangling of protocols merely to prevent others from interworking -
kerberos and pptp or rather M$ version.
Most of the embedded device makers were (and are)
with gpl (and bsd) code. Several have been brought to book
because of the gpl.
most of them have not been caught yet! and I do not understand what
this has to do with the points that I am raising.
While the gpl provides one with a legal means of enforcing compliance,
a mangled BSD stack provides no such protection as they dont care.
Unfortunately it's the end user who suffers.
That the only thing that might yet save JAVA is
save JAVA from what?
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
what does this mean?
GPLV3 requires assignment of patent rights automatically to all
Much of your arguments (except one) is about (1)
huh? who am I expecting to behave? and behave how?
1) the guy who takes bsd code into gpl and
2) 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
and (2) the assumption that an improvment is not
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.
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 fail to see how (1) holds in the light of the
The whole point of opening your code is the desire for
improvment, so proposing (2) as an argument against gpl seems
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
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.
There have been innumerable cases on stories, poems and particularly
music, which were litigated alleging copying. Most of them were
thrown out, even though they sound substantially similiar.
The famed Music director Naushad lost (afaik) a case on remixes of his
In essence copyright does not preclude plagiarism of ideas, as
intended by law.
In the case of GPL software, reimplementing code is very clearly not
particularly because much of gpl code is
improvements, especially if it is derived from BSD, or when bsd
code is folded into gpl.
I have news for you - most open source code is incremental
improvements - the methodology that is proven to be successful.
This is methodology and has nothing to do with license.
I am quite sure that most foss developers are not
cool - are you among their number?
Absolutely. If someone realises his code as BSD, he knows (or should
know) what he is doing. However when it comes to advocacy or release
of publicly funded code, I am absolutely clear that the code must be
released under the GPL.
except for the major irritant of having to
closed derivative works.
be clear on one thing - I personally feel that writing closed
source code is immoral and evil, I campaign against it - but
unfortunately closed source software has not yet been added in the
schedule prohibited substances in relevant anti trafficking laws.
Note: I abhor closed works derived from foss. I could not care less
about an independent closed implementation of any code.