On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Binand Sethumadhavan <binand(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: Nope. Free Software aka Freedom Software or Example software licensed under GPLv3 or similar license never stop you to sell a software. For example If you purchase a custom GPLv3 software from me, I will charge you heavily. But now you have a license which allow you to sell or upload somewhere on web to sell it free of cost. Because it never restrict you or anybody to share, automatically software become free of cost.

On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 22:58 +0530, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote: reminds me of that shop in Marina beach where a guy is minting money selling buckets of sea water at 50 rupees a bucket. -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon(a)thenilgiris.com>wrote;wrote: It means, you are not getting money from selling FOSS. You are getting money from selling your software to some customer who completely own your software. I too do sometimes but what is the difference between a developer sitting in a proprietary firm who produce non-free software and you. Both are getting paid for writing code which other own. In your case, the customer, in other case, the company. -- ┌─────────────────────────┐ │ Narendra Sisodiya │ http://narendrasisodiya.com └─────────────────────────┘

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon(a)thenilgiris.com>wrote;wrote: Thanks ! Indeed a good model. :) Also we got the reason of BSD affection :)

On Thursday 30 Dec 2010, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: That's because your business model is based on a flawed premise: that by giving a GPL software to one person you are obliged to share it with everyone in the world. You need never ever distribute your GPL software if you don't wish to, and if you ever do you are only obliged to give the source code of the software TO THE PERSON YOU GIVE THE SOFTWARE TO, no one else. I have developed GPL software for clients, and given them the source code, and that works just fine. If they choose to further redistribute the software, they also have to follow the terms of the GPL; if they don't want to redistribute under the GPL, they have to get me to change the original licence of the software I developed, and I can then charge a fee or make a profit sharing agreement if I so choose. So with the GPL everyone wins. The client wins because she has the source code of the software and is not dependent on the original author for maintenance. The original developer wins because if the client wants to make money from selling the software the developer can ask for a cut for changing the licence. Regards, -- Raj -- Raj Mathur raju(a)kandalaya.org http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves

On Friday 31 December 2010 09:02:44 Binand Sethumadhavan wrote: Only violators are losers. Whoever abides by the rules and tailors his business to the rules wins, including distributors - in a way everyone is a minor contibutor to the overall system and everyone is a distributor, including distro vendors like canonical, slackware, whoever. Whiccever way you look at it, everyone is taking orders of magnitude more than they are putting in. The best part is this is intended by design. -- Rgds JTD

On Friday 31 December 2010 15:18:59 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: True. Besides the whole point of the gpl is to get others to contribute. After all there are far more creative guys outside than inside. -- Rgds JTD

On Friday 31 Dec 2010, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: That's totally at variance with what you said earlier. I was responding to your original statement, which, to quote you, is: No mention of public repositories of open source there. I have no issue if you wish to make another point, but your original point has nothing to do with your follow-up. It appears that you're badly confused between development methodology and licence. To clarify, let me give you a couple of scenarios: 1. You develop your software on a public repository, asking for contributions from the public. As long as you have it under a FOSS licence (GPL, BSD, or any other), you cannot stop people from downloading the source and using it. Again regardless of the licence, each person who downloads the source code from the repository can choose to keep it herself or redistribute it. She can also choose to keep modified versions of the code for herself or redistribute it. 2. You develop your software in private manner for a single client. Depending on which FOSS licence you choose -- copyleft (GPL) or open (BSD, etc.) -- your obligations to provide source code to your client will be different. If you have developed under the GPL, you are obliged to provide the source code of the package to the client once you give her the binaries. If under a non-copyleft licence, you don't have that obligation. The GPL is obviously better in the second scenario, since your client will have the source and can make improvements or changes herself if she so desires. If the software is under a non-copyleft licence, the client may or may not get the source, depending on your contract and/or your whim. In both scenarios, if the person who gets the source modifies it and redistributes modified binaries to other people, she is obliged to provide the modified source code too if the original software is under the GPL. If the original software is under a non-copyleft licence, she is NOT obliged to provide the source, and your software can be made or embedded into proprietary products. I agree that software licensing is a complex issue, but there are enough resources available on the Internet to help anyone understand the difference between GPL vs non-GPL obligations, pros and cons of each type of licence, development methodologies, trademarks and copyrights and patents. I'd be glad to point you in the direction of a few introductory texts if you're still confused. As for the GPL being restrictive of freedom -- well, I have no comment since the belief obviously springs from a lack of understanding of licensing. Regards, -- Raj -- Raj Mathur raju(a)kandalaya.org http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves &lt;lawgon(a)thenilgiris.com&gt;wrote;wrote: <fiction> Going to Book Library is a "restriction of freedom", I cannot create noise or speak loudly. Too bad, it prevent me to use my basic right to speak. That is my I call library is a place for restriction of freedom and I do not go to Libraries. </fiction>

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Binand Sethumadhavan &lt;binand(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: It was a satire.. with an analogy that people make wrong perception on freedom I don't have problem with BSD and nor with GPL. but I love GPL. but If somebody says that GPL is restriction to freedom then I must oppose because it is not true. GPL and viral license are designed so that evil company guys do not get extra-benefits over it. which is acceptable. BSD and Apache license is more attractive to company guy because he can find it good for faster development. for example - 4-5 mobile company and one big search engine company work together to create a mobile operating system which is not GPL, now, Other companies can take that code and add their proprietary addons on it to look it more attractive and extra feature. -- ┌─────────────────────────┐ │ Narendra Sisodiya │ http://narendrasisodiya.com └─────────────────────────┘

On Sat, 2011-01-01 at 18:06 +0530, jtd wrote: like what has happened to Apache, python, postgresql, perl, php ... -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/

On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 11:31 +0530, jtd wrote: I have been asking you to comment on postgresql since 2003 - you are always dodging the issue. please read the last paragraph: http://www.postgresql.org/about/licence.html -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/

On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 14:51 +0530, jtd wrote: for the past 7 years every time this debate (GPL vs BSD) comes up I raise the question of postgresql, python and apache when you predict doom for all non-GPL projects are there any licenses that make one not open to patent attacks? -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/

On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 20:32 +0530, jtd wrote: how much time do you need? python, perl have been there for 20 years, postgresql for about 15 years. -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/

On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 15:41 +0530, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote: that is the last para I am referring to -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/

On Monday 03 Jan 2011, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: Again, you are confused between licensing and copyright assignment. The MySQL problem happened because MySQL AB (and then Sun and then Oracle) insisted that all patch submitters hand over copyright to MySQL/Sun/Oracle. In other words, they refused to accept patches and features from developers unless the those developers made them (MySQL/Sun/Oracle) owners of the code. This is NOT the normal mode of working of a FOSS project; for instance, the Linux kernel is also licensed under the GPL but copyright/ownership of each portion of code remains with the original author. MySQL's problem has nothing to do with the licence of the code. Ownership is ownership, regardless of the licence of the object owned. Once again, I'll reiterate my offer of simple readings on the 'net that would help anyone to understand the critical differences between licensing, copyright, trademarks, patents and ownership of code/content. On the other hand, I cannot do anything for those who wish to remain ignorant so that they can continue to misinterpret things to strengthen their fallacious arguments. Regards, -- Raj -- Raj Mathur raju(a)kandalaya.org http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves

On Monday 03 Jan 2011, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: So what exactly does this have to do with your original point vis-a-vis MySQL and GPL? As far as I can see, now you're talking about something else altogether. Please do enlighten me on how this has any relationship at all to your earlier statement (which I had responded to): Can you please be more clear: are we discussing the merits/demerits of licences, are we discussing copyright assignments, or are we discussing development methodologies? They are distinct (if related) fields, and I'd be glad to discuss any of them, if you could from e-mail to e-mail be consistent on which one is under discussion. Anyone with half a clue about licensing would understand why dual- licence entities prefer the GPL. Again, I'd be glad to discuss it, but I'm sure the next mail would be about some unrelated topic and nothing to do with anything discussed earlier in this thread, so I'll just save myself the effort. Regards, -- Raj -- Raj Mathur raju(a)kandalaya.org http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves

On Monday 03 Jan 2011, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: It has nothing to do with developing code in closets or in the open. The reason why people who have dual-licensing models choose the GPL is: People who make packages with libraries (or just libraries), like Qt used to be and MySQL is today, prefer the GPL for their libraries because then their product cannot be incorporated into a proprietary product. So if you are using, say, MySQL to develop your proprietary application you need to use the MySQL libraries for your app to interact with the database. Since the MySQL library is under the GPL, any code linked to it also must be under the GPL. As a developer using any GPL platform as the base, you are left with only two choices: 1. Make your application also open under the GPL. 2. Make your application proprietary and try to get a proprietary licence from the platform owner. If there is a single owner (as in the case of MySQL), they can dual-license the the base product and sell you the same product under a proprietary licence that allows you to make proprietary products with the product. If there is no single owner (as in the case of the Linux kernel), you cannot make proprietary applications at all that use or link to the GPL code. Of course, this only works because of the way the GPL works. If the original product (or its libraries) are under a non-copyleft licence, you can embed them in proprietary products in any case. So finally, the situation boils down to this: - If you don't care about people making proprietary products using your platform, don't use a copyleft licence. - If you don't want people making proprietary products using your platform, use the GPL or another copyleft licence. That will ensure that all derivatives remain open, since the GPL (and its copyleft brethren) is the only licence that guarantees openness. - If you want to charge people for making proprietary products using your platform and still want to retain the "FOSS" tag, use the GPL, take unilateral control of the code base, and dual license the platform for open and proprietary use. This is what MySQL did and what Canonical is trying to do now -- get all contributor copyrights assigned to itself. Regards, -- Raj -- Raj Mathur raju(a)kandalaya.org http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves

2011/1/3 Narendra Sisodiya &lt;narendra(a)narendrasisodiya.com&gt;om>: No. Not even if he writes a C program that execve()'s ls or cat. But if he uses the source code of ls to implement a function in his code, then yes - he has to release it under GPL. Binand

On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 18:34 +0530, Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) wrote: thats me -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/

On Tuesday 04 Jan 2011, Shamit Verma wrote: The exception is like the LGPL but is not actually exactly the LGPL. According to the LGPL, you can link an LGPL library into a proprietary product provided you either (a) do not change the library or (b) ship the source of the modified library along with the rest of your product. Note that the LGPL does not force you to expose the rest of the code of your product. The MySQL library code is GPL, but the exception permits you to link another non-GPL FOSS (Note: NOT proprietary) application with the library. If the exception weren't present, only GPL applications could link with the MySQL library. In other words, the LGPL lets you link proprietary code with the library, while the MySQL exception only lets you link other FOSS code with the library. The MySQL library remains under the GPL and you cannot link that with proprietary code. That's my reading of the exception, I'm open to correction if I've got it grossly wrong. Regards, -- Raj -- Raj Mathur raju(a)kandalaya.org http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves &lt;lawgon(a)thenilgiris.com&gt;wrote;wrote: So that someone can not take community version of their code and create another commercial clone. If somebody does that, that clone would have to open the source under GPL. -Shamit

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves &lt;lawgon(a)thenilgiris.com&gt;wrote;wrote: So that people who benefit from your efforts "have to" contribute back by giving access to source code for the enhancements. Case in point, OSX. Linux/BSD do not have a desktop environment comparable to OSX. OSX is developed on top of BSD. If BSD license had terms similar to Linux, Apple would have had to provide source code for enhancements. With that, Linux would have benefited from a better user experience. -Shamit

On 01/05/2011 02:05 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: The subtle thing about the GPL requirement is you are not *forced* to contribute back if decide not to redistribute. The core principle here is extend to your users the same courtesy that you received -- which IMHO is not a repugnant idea. Philosophy aside tho', even engineering wise, it is more efficient when people contribute back since one does not spend time reinventing (reimplementing?) the (improved) wheel. I could twist this into a variety of other flames (like KDE Vs Gnome) ...but am too old for it now :) cheers, - steve -- random spiel: http://lonetwin.net/ what i'm stumbling into: http://lonetwin.stumbleupon.com/

On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 14:42 +0530, Shamit Verma wrote: it is possible - may be I am not dumb enough to appreciate it. -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/

On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 22:56 +0530, Rony wrote: where is the name calling? I am just echoing a legitimate view that doing everything through GUI without knowing what you are doing dumbs down the user. (and now this will turn into a CLI vs GUI flame). -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/

On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 17:59 +0530, Rony wrote: ok - I will change that to: 'maybe I am not intelligent enough to appreciate it'. Happy? -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/

On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 00:43 +0530, Rony Bill wrote: to be frank I have no idea what you are talking about -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves &lt;lawgon(a)thenilgiris.com&gt; wrote: what else to says - steve and other guys have well explained the "Reason" for this so called 'forcing' If BSD guys like to help every "daam insect" on planet then please "always code in public domain" No restriction atall.

On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 15:54 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote: come to the point - you are the guy who is having so much fun enjoying the real freedom given to you by jquery -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Narendra Sisodiya &lt;narendra(a)narendrasisodiya.com&gt; wrote: Some more point i was to express : jQuery is a API or Library which eveyone can use, so there is no point in taking its code and making a proprietary API, so jQuery example we can not compare with a Software or Operating system which is MIT/BSD. One cannot hide source code of jQuery or Javascript, so it is different then the software which are shipped into binary format. Also, Developer-base (number of developers) who write and use jQuery is very large. For as long as the nature and purpose of jQuery concerned , I admit, MIT+GPL was most suitable license for jQuery. But If I were given the choice to make an application using jQuery, then I will always prefer GPL or AGPL... -- ┌─────────────────────────┐ │    Narendra Sisodiya │    http://narendrasisodiya.com └─────────────────────────┘

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves &lt;lawgon(a)thenilgiris.com&gt; wrote: See, license of jQuery is best combo. I like it. But I am saying, If I write any "application" using jQuery, then I will release it under GPL.

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves &lt;lawgon(a)thenilgiris.com&gt; wrote: If I wrote jQuery then I would have released under same GPL+MIT license..

On Wednesday 05 Jan 2011, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: Because you want the benefits of other peoples' changes to your software to reach everyone? If I write a free utility to calculate PI up to a million digits, and someone else modifies it to calculate it up to a billion digits, I would want that modified utility and the enhanced techniques it uses to also be available for free. In other words, I don't want Apple to take my shiny new McDonalds finder program and make it into a sexy proprietary application which only registered Apple users can download for a fee. You may agree or disagree with that viewpoint but you cannot question its validity. Regards, -- Raj -- Raj Mathur raju(a)kandalaya.org http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves

On Wednesday 05 Jan 2011, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: "against freedom"? That's like saying that a law preventing me from chaining you up is against my freedom to chain people up! Preventing people from creating restrictions is not a restriction, except in a very twisted world view. Anyway, I'm not getting into a mindless GPL vs BSD debate here. I personally believe that a freedom extends only as far as it doesn't impact on another freedom, and the the GPL is the best way to preserve the freedom and openness of software. You are welcome to disagree as long and as loud as you wish, I'm done. Regards, -- Raj -- Raj Mathur raju(a)kandalaya.org http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves

On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 13:46 +0530, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote: then B is an ass - he should have taken it from me. The fact that A takes my code and closes it only applies to the copy A has - my copy is still open. -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/

On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 14:44 +0530, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote: I wrote this parable some time back: http://lawgon.livejournal.com/68802.html -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/

On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 14:45 +0530, steve wrote: the very fact that he is dumb enough to take *my* code makes that assumption very remote ;-) *shrugs* that is B's problem - no one compels him to pay cash money for software - it is his choice. If you cannot get something free, and you cannot do without it or work around it - you pay. I see lots of people paying for software because they think they cannot do without it. Not my problem. -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/

On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 16:11 +0530, steve wrote: how does B lose freedom of choice? no one forces him to use freeware. If he thinks he cannot do without it, that is his problem. And A has not closed the code which was open. The code is still open. A has closed his improvements - that is his choice. btw, what happens if A releases his improved code under the GPL? I cannot use his improvements in my code - so as far as I am concerned it is irrelevant whether he releases his code under the GPL or whether he chooses not release his code. (this actually happened to me once - some guy took a lot of my code, incorporated it into his app and released the whole thing under GPL - no doubt he was free to do this, but I flamed him anyway - and he promptly un-GPL'd his code and released it under BSD.) -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/

On Wednesday 05 January 2011 04:53 PM, Rajagopal Swaminathan wrote: I don't mean to dampen spirits but a business is run by people who trust each other and can be considered trust worthy, as loyalty to the company means a lot for the company's secure future. An open model that allows everyone to join in may not be a nice idea after all for the company in the long run. People who are looking for a foothold will join, sponge off and leave. A farmers' cooperative is a singular body where all the farmers pool in their resources and no one can go it all alone so there is no danger to the organisation. A cooperative housing society is an organisation that is created to streamline and share the cost of maintainance of the premises in a collective manner. There is no profit making involved. -- As a proper list etiquette... Please trim your replies. Post your replies below the relevant original text, leaving a line space. Do not re-use old messages to write new ones. Regards, Rony.

On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 13:49 +0530, steve wrote: why harp on apple and M$? no one expects anything from them. Regardless of license they will find a way of perverting everything - look at the lakhs of ordinary contributors who contribute back - look at django or jquery. not necessarily - a lot of people just do not touch GPL code - they prefer to contribute code to projects with a more free license. -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/

2011/1/5 Shamit Verma &lt;subs.linux.mum(a)vshamit.com&gt;om>: You have any reference for this? I was under the impression that Opera/Presto beats all others on Mobile devices. Binand

2011/1/5 Shamit Verma &lt;subs.linux.mum(a)vshamit.com&gt;om>: True, but it would still be good if you can provide me with a reference that I can quote to others. Opera ships on a lot more devices than what are nowadays called smartphones - and these devices make up the bulk of the mobile market, if I remember correctly. Binand

2011/1/5 Shamit Verma &lt;subs.linux.mum(a)vshamit.com&gt;om>: I don't doubt that. My interest is in the actual numbers, which neither of the URLs you pasted mention. Opera in their annual report mentions that theirs is the most popular mobile browser in use globally. Binand

2011/1/5 Shamit Verma &lt;subs.linux.mum(a)vshamit.com&gt;om>: What are the denominators used here? 20% of what? But then you are counting entire Blackberry under Webkit - which is probably not true (only recent Blackberries I believe, have Webkit-based browsers). Also, Nokia uses Webkit only on S60 mobiles - the S40 and older mobiles all had non-Webkit browsers (my Nokia 6303 Classic came with Opera Mini pre-installed). Lastly, Opera has a number of private-labeling deals with OEMs - in the Statcounter chart, there is an entry for Samsung, which is one such. I think Samsung's non-S60 mobiles all use Opera. Mind you, I don't doubt Webkit is gaining popularity - Apple ported it to iOS, Nokia to S60, Google to Android - all large markets. But what I'm doubting is if it has already overtaken Opera. Binand

2011/1/6 Shamit Verma &lt;subs.linux.mum(a)vshamit.com&gt;om>: Thanks. Now, what is a "Layer1 router"? Opera's claim is from analytics of its Opera Turbo system - which is an Opera-owned proxy that sits between Opera Mini and the actual website and takes up a bunch of processing (including running javascript). And what about case 3: Where a custom build of Opera Mini, based upon a private label deal between Opera and Nokia, is the built-in browser on the handset (as is the case in the Nokia 6303)? Counting total HTTP requests obviously depends on whether Statscounter or whoever gets to see the request; Opera Mini in Turbo mode apparently doesn't allow them to do so. Binand

On Thursday 06 January 2011 01:29 PM, Shamit Verma wrote: So it boils down to the fact that if a browser is willing to give up its identity and let the individual hardware makers use its code but add their own label to it then it will be more popular. -- As a proper list etiquette... Please trim your replies. Post your replies below the relevant original text, leaving a line space. Do not re-use old messages to write new ones. Regards, Rony.

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Rony &lt;gnulinuxist(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Don't get that... You are referring to WebKit or Opera? -Shamit

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Rony &lt;gnulinuxist(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Don't agree with that. Two reasons : 1. WebKit is Open Source (LGPG and BSD). That is primary reason for adoption by everyone. 2. WebKit is clearly identified in User Agent strings (E.g. Nokia6303classic/2.0 (06.21) Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/420+) And despite LGPL+BSD, every major company (Apple/Google/Nokia) commits into codebase. Since its in their own interest. E.g. if Nokia fixes a JavaScript bug and does not commit, it will have to re-fix it every-time they sync code from main repository. -Shamit

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Rony &lt;gnulinuxist(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: That is only in the End User UI. Http server would see relevant UA (User Agent) header depending on browser used. Regardless, since WebKit is open source and pretty good in terms of HTML5 support it now clearly dominates mobile world. It also helps that its LGPL and BSD so device makers can easily embed code into devices and contribute back changes made in "core" packages. -Shamit

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Rony &lt;gnulinuxist(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: That was the case till last year. This year it is clearly Webkit that has most marketshare in terms of: 1. Number of supported devices (Andriod/iOS/Blackberry/Nokia) 2. Actual Web usage data -Shamit

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Rony Bill &lt;gnulinuxist(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: That is a different aspect. Opera is a pretty good browser on Desktop as well as on mobile. But in terms of Marletshare, its negligible on desktop (around 2%) and on Mobile it has been eclipsed by Webkit on mobile. -Shamit

On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 16:07 +0530, steve wrote: for your information, the growth of linux is not due to the license - it is due to the methodology. I do not know much about the BSD operating system and it's history - I am talking about the BSD license. And if you will really want to compare, I suggest you compare BSD OS with the quintessential GPL project - GNU hurd. or even better, why not compare linux to hurd? same license - why not the same speed of development? -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Rony &lt;gnulinuxist(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: See, License of application depends on purpose of application ! most of the time when I just make a very small script or some trick - I use MIT license. If size goes bigger, I use GPL. for libraries - LGPL or varient fits good. for applications GPL is good and also depends on How you want to commercialize...

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Binand Sethumadhavan &lt;binand(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Its obvious ... If I write 10 line script which can be used anywhere in the world in any form then I will use MIT.. Of-course yes - It depends on purpose, It was just a suggestion.

2011/1/6 Kenneth Gonsalves &lt;lawgon(a)thenilgiris.com&gt;om>: If you are the copyright holder of the code, there is nothing stopping you from changing the license. I don't see why the above scenario is a "mistake" (unless you are talking of "oh shit! I shouldn't have allowed the world to see my source code"). Once again, GPL's restrictions are on *distribution* - not on writing code, not on using code. Binand

2011/1/6 Kenneth Gonsalves &lt;lawgon(a)thenilgiris.com&gt;om>: Now we come to the crux of the matter - if you have accepted contributions from others into your software (which you sell/support), then you are no longer the sole author - you now move into the "distributor" role. And of course, as I have been maintaining, distributors who do not play fair and by the rules lose out in the GPL world. You obviously have the choice of not accepting third-party contributions without a copyright assignment. Binand

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves &lt;lawgon(a)thenilgiris.com&gt; wrote: Let me clarify all - I never said, everything can be GPLed. I opposed only one argument of KG where he said GPL restrict freedom - "The only restriction the GPL imposes is that it prevents people from imposing further restrictions. #GPL" -- ┌─────────────────────────┐ │    Narendra Sisodiya │    http://narendrasisodiya.com └─────────────────────────┘

On 01/06/2011 01:46 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: ehe ...are the two statements above the same thing ? Lets see: Seems to be essentially the same thing ...so what is the 'not true' part ? Unless you are in the habit of denying something and then repeating exactly what the other person says. cheers, - steve -- random spiel: http://lonetwin.net/ what i'm stumbling into: http://lonetwin.stumbleupon.com/

On Thursday 06 January 2011 12:49:40 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: How does the conditions on which an open licence is based change with a country? One might note that, much of M$ problem creation capabilities arose from the freedom granted by BSD (or similiar licenced) code. Most of the embedded device makers were (and are) making merry with gpl (and bsd) code. Several have been brought to book because of the gpl. That the only thing that might yet save JAVA is the GPL 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. Much of your arguments (except one) is about (1) expecting others to behave and (2) the assumption that an improvment is not desired by the original developer. 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. The exception is BSD not benefiting from literal copying of gpl code. Note that reading and reimplementing gpl code is a viable alternative, particularly because much of gpl code is incremental improvements, especially if it is derived from BSD, or when bsd code is folded into gpl. I am quite sure that most foss developers are not anti BSD either, except for the major irritant of having to reverse engineer closed derivative works. -- Rgds JTD

On Thursday 06 January 2011 16:10:35 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: Ok Mangling of protocols merely to prevent others from interworking - kerberos and pptp or rather M$ version. http://www.schneier.com/pptp-faq.html 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. GPLV3 requires assignment of patent rights automatically to all downstream distributors. 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 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. 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 music. 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 copying. 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. Note: I abhor closed works derived from foss. I could not care less about an independent closed implementation of any code. -- Rgds JTD

On Friday 07 January 2011 12:59:20 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: From losing foss developers. 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. Who is disputing this? 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". Fair enough. Very very much a reimplementation. 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. IMO 100% One assumes that patents is a non issue. http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/openbsd-misc/2007/11/9/399443 -- Rgds JTD

2011/1/7 Kenneth Gonsalves &lt;lawgon(a)thenilgiris.com&gt;om>: Just curious, why do they care it is BSD or GPL? Binand

2011/1/7 Kenneth Gonsalves &lt;lawgon(a)thenilgiris.com&gt;om>: What I wanted to know was the reason for this "feeling". Anyway, if you know the answer please share - otherwise, ignore - not important. Binand

2011/1/7 Kenneth Gonsalves &lt;lawgon(a)thenilgiris.com&gt;om>: The reasons that made this *specific* company to spurn GPL in favour of BSD... Binand

On Friday 07 January 2011 15:20:33 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: I am not an expert. But I am quite sure that the gpl (or any other copyright licence ) cannot prevent a new implementation, especially in the case of software. In This case you are changing the language itself. IMO more than sufficient to disprove derivation and most certainly only an idiot would allege copying. There is also sufficient precedent for interface reverse engineering, even on patented code (imo patents are far more unforgiving about plagiarism ). IMO you are ok. But as you have mentioned in the next mail, those guys have a legal team, you might as well take their opinion. -- Rgds JTD

On Thursday 06 January 2011 12:49 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: Now this was short and to the point. Thanks. Can a software under BSD be simply copied and renamed under a proprietary name and locked out to the developers? How does it benefit the developer community, except the chance to get paid for developing on a contract like basis till the project is running? On reading your mails after this one, it appears that the BSD form of license is good for companies who want people to contribute to their code but after the job is done they will close the code and use it commercially. If the developers are aware of what they are getting into and are willing to help then its fine. Opening the code helps the company in improving its software's quality so end users will get a better product. However if the proprietary product is now commercially available for a price that is out of reach of the common man then it beats one of the unwritten purposes of FOSS ideology ie. to make the software more accessible to the masses. What about vendor lock-ins due to proprietary data formats used for software that has turned proprietary after its conversion from BSD? In short a BSD license would be used by commercial organisations to develop and improvise their software through the public without being compelled to share the code for their finished product. Does it not make sense that if a software is created openly by the public, for the public, then those members of the public who use the code for distribution and or make changes to it for re-distribution should pass on the same rights that they have _inherited_ from the developing public? GPL simply wants to ensure that what is open remains open when it is passed on to others. You even have the freedom to make commercial gains from the GPLed software without any financial obligitation towards the GPLed software developers. Fair enough. I would not call it restrictive as it is only protecting the freedom of the community to have _access_ to the code that was created from a public resource and is distributed back to the public. You still have the freedom to use the GPLed code and modify it for your private usage without revealing your modifications. This license would be ideal for community projects that are meant to make software easily accessible to everyone at lowest cost. Commercial organisations with a conscience towards the community will take advantage of this license and help the community grow and in the process make the company grow too. Commercial organisations that are only profit and monopoly oriented may dislike the full freedom that the GPL license obligates its _inheritors_ to pass on ( which they find restrictive to themselves as developers, who do not want to share code for the finished product ). They would be more comfortable with a BSD license. Ultimately both are going to make money. It all depends on one's beliefs, ethics and conscience and how one wants to make money. -- As a proper list etiquette... Please trim your replies. Post your replies below the relevant original text, leaving a line space. Do not re-use old messages to write new ones. Regards, Rony.

On Friday 07 January 2011 13:15:49 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: You are looking at the lookable parts and what they are doing. You would have to search for the unlookable parts and what they are not doing (wrt contributing back). Non contributions may or may not be large or damaging, but we are not going to convince each other without hard data. As it stands I think everbody has plenty of other stuff to do, but it would be good exercise. -- Rgds JTD

On Friday 07 January 2011 15:23:25 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: I agree. The example of pptp. But crappy code did cause a pita. So non contribituions not only resulted in no gain, but actually a loss to everybody. For the record i had a taste of M$ pptp while trying to get a pilot of major project off the ground. Needless to say the isp lost big time - 10000 connections - and the bank money and time. I was ofcourse paid, but getting things done and working is what interests me rather than just money. Circa 2003-4. -- Rgds JTD

On Friday 07 January 2011 01:15 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: [snip] Even closed commercial software is popular so what? In a nutshell, we can separate BSD and GPL in terms of software freedom like this. BSD believes that something is better than nothing. GPL believes that either it is full freedom or nothing. -- As a proper list etiquette... Please trim your replies. Post your replies below the relevant original text, leaving a line space. Do not re-use old messages to write new ones. Regards, Rony.

On 01/09/2011 03:33 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: ROFL ! The reason I am LOLing is, I had starting posting something along the lines below but then got distracted and then I didn't bother completing since BSD Vs GPL is a never-ending debate. However, I found your response funny enough to warrant completing this: ------------------------------------- See, that thing that you would typically feel if I were to take your BSD licensed code and redistribute it under the GPL (ensuring that you cannot use my modifications without compromising your license), is the same as what GPLwallas feel when somebody wants to take their code and wants to redistribute it in a closed manner. So, from a GPLwalla's perspective, BSD is one-step-removed from the 'proprietary-zation' of software. So, the GPLwallas ensure that this does not happen and live happily whereas there are times when you will fret and fume and stay angry because you cannot force, only persuade. GPLwallas prefer that everyone plays by the same rules and thus stay happy (and more productive) rather than let it be a free-for-all-no-rules and then fret, fume and flame because somebody didn't play as fairly as you hoped (and I am talking /not only/ of people who close BSD code, but also the GPLwallas who take your code and turn it into GPL). ------------------------------------- I know ^^^^ that's not exactly the reason you are banging your head, but you are banging it nonetheless since you just can't seem to convince people in either simple or a long-winded manner just /how/ BSD is ^more free^. heh cheers, - steve -- random spiel: http://lonetwin.net/ what i'm stumbling into: http://lonetwin.stumbleupon.com/

On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 12:02 +0530, steve wrote: I am banging my head on the keyboard because if you see sub thread, the reason I posted that list of projects that have happily existed for years without being taken over was to illustrate the point that for a project to sustain as open source, it needs to attract a critical mass of developers who each retain their own copyright and hence make it impossible for anyone to buy the copyright. The type of license is irrelevant here. Mysql is the classic case on the one side and linux is the classic case on the other side. And both are GPLed. The Apache project is a classic case on the BSD license side, but I am unable to find an equivalent of Mysql model of development on the BSD side - but I am sure the GPLwalas would be able to supply any number of examples. I was bit surprised to find that apart from Narendra in the case of small scripts, every one else on this list publishes their open source code under the GPL. On analysing why, I think I have found the solution. I am an applications developer - right at the bottom of the food chain and being in the python/django world, which is mainly driven by BSD style licenses, I find using the BSD style license helps me remain friends with the people whose code I use. But looking at the examples given by the list members, I now realise that most of them are linux kernel hackers - or developers of embedded stuff. This stuff (as I have mentioned before) could be best GPLed - and in fact GPL rules in this sphere. I had however expected that those in this list who contribute code to the modern scripting languages - perl, python php etc - would appreciate and abide by the BSD style licenses of those languages. But it looks like most of the list members hack on C, C++ and java - which are all GPLed. I personally am incapable of learning these languages (I *have* tried) but I have nothing but respect for people who can - and so have to respect their choice of GPL - they have no choice actually. And it is obvious that no one contributes code to the apache family of applications (probably no one uses them since these come much lower down in the food chain than the kernel, GNU toolchain and the core languages). Fortunately I happen to belong to other lists where such lower level people exist - so life is not all complications ;-) I admit in my earlier days I never used to sleep well because I was worried that someone would steal my code over night and either GPL it or make it closed source. But I am happy to note that all the code in the various repositories is still there every morning when I check - so now I sleep well. I was surprised to find that if one contributes translations to launchpad, one is compelled to submit it under the BSD license. What are the consequences of integrating a BSD licensed translation into a GPL'ed code base? But it looks like no one here contributes to launchpad - which is a pity, there are so many applications which need translation and a lot of people who cannot contribute code or documentation can do this - and launchpad makes it so easy. You can contribute as much you like - even just do a word a day if you do not have much time. But unfortunately it is BSD license, so some one may 'steal' the translation and make it proprietary. And why do some thing so mundane as translation when one can hack the kernel? One big positive that I can take from this debate is that I learned that the GPL does not compel one to release one's code to the public if one distributes it. A can sell the code to B under GPL, and then flog the same copy to C and to D and to E ... B, C, D et al, having paid huge amounts for the 'product' are very unlikely to give it away, so as long as they do not meet up A can go laughing all the way to the bank. Nice to know. -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/

On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 17:21 +0530, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote: zimbra -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/

On Monday 03 January 2011 03:35 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: You guys remind me of one joke. A dentist is about to extract a tooth and tells the patient "Madam you are holding my balls". The patient replies "Yes that is to ensure that we do not give each other any pain". -- As a proper list etiquette... Please trim your replies. Post your replies below the relevant original text, leaving a line space. Do not re-use old messages to write new ones. Regards, Rony.

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:13 PM, jtd &lt;jtd(a)mtnl.net.in&gt; wrote: Well, thanks for wasting time and giving the useless reply. Although, I felt that talking about FOSS on LUG list gives me feeling of freedom. PS: When one has got nothing to say/point to some URLs, better not waste time of your own and others deleting such mails. -- Thanks, Sagar Belure

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Sagar Belure &lt;sagar.belure(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: He is also correct. Even if you search on a google you will get well written articles. After reading you can ask more indepth.

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 1:59 AM, jtd &lt;jtd(a)mtnl.net.in&gt; wrote: Alright. The Revolution OS documentary which was made in 2001 shows difficulties Eric Raymond and other VA systems software developers were facing problems while implementing the projects and to get venture capital firms investments. Also, why was the term "Open Source" came into existence instead of "Free Software", and so the BSD license. And then, the Netscape's decision to make their source code open so to complete with Microsoft's IE. And, so on and forth. But, the documentary and even some of links I got by googling are like late 90's. I mean, if you think for now, say, "What? A browser for $$? Are you nuts to buy that?" Also, for guy like me, dealing with all this Free and Open source world not even more than an year now, is not at all worth to refer that all. I wanted the real-time scenario, or should I say, how the market look at all this FOSS development life cycles. I can't really imagine, people making a *real* business out of this. Agreed. I wish I see that line, I wake up every morning out of my bed. -- Thanks, Sagar Belure

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 4:21 AM, jtd &lt;jtd(a)mtnl.net.in&gt; wrote: Wow. Awesome. Again. See, you've got so much to say than just making *another* comment. So, when I want to share this thread with my other peers, they just go saying "Another LUG thread..." And, I love FOSS. :) -- Thanks, Sagar Belure

On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 00:37 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote: how much is google paying you to advertise it's site? -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/

Greetings, 2010/12/30 Dinesh Shah (દિનેશ શાહ/दिनेश शाह) &lt;dineshah(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: could you kindly post resolvable URLs (in the sig at least)? regards Rajagopal

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Narendra Sisodiya &lt;narendra(a)narendrasisodiya.com&gt; wrote: Neither I'm getting paid. I can imagine that. (You can follow the thread, and there shouldn't be *seniority* when it comes to hurting the egos) Yes, that's really true though, even if you ask me. Seriously, even I have been paying a lot more attention to each and every word he puts on the list. I had an image of him on my own. Let me just say, when I get the disgusting thoughts looking at someone's thread. I ignore answering. I will wait for others replies, so to read their views. Or *at worst*, I will delete it. So instead of pointing someone in *any* direction, I would simply save my time, replying *anything* at all. -- Thanks, Sagar Belure

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 4:57 AM, jtd &lt;jtd(a)mtnl.net.in&gt; wrote: [...snip...] [...snip...] Well, I meant I'm not getting paid by answering others/my own queries nor I'm getting paid my asking questions. So, as you see, it's not *compulsory* to answer/reply for anyone to reply for every post. -- Thanks, Sagar Belure

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves &lt;lawgon(a)thenilgiris.com&gt;wrote;wrote: Thanks for correcting my English.

On Dec 31, 2010, at 12:06 AM, Rony wrote: Read up on regular expressions and string substitutions in vi :-) Cheers, Amol

On Fri, 2010-12-31 at 00:06 +0530, Rony wrote: I think it is perl - translated it means 'substitute right for wrong' -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/

On Friday 31 December 2010 11:16 AM, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote: Ok so it is the 'substitute' command. Thanks everyone for your inputs. -- As a proper list etiquette... Please trim your replies. Post your replies below the relevant original text, leaving a line space. Do not re-use old messages to write new ones. Regards, Rony.

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves &lt;lawgon(a)thenilgiris.com&gt; wrote: Again. My apologies sir. And, will make sure that, I will do as you suggested. At least, previous one is better than this one. ;-) -- Thanks, Sagar Belure

On Dec 30, 2010, at 11:58 PM, Rony wrote: :o) Bang on! In short, everything depends on whose side the law is. Morality and law, often they don't agree. Cheers, Amol Hatwar

On Friday 31 December 2010 08:55 AM, Binand Sethumadhavan wrote: Yes. Thanks for pointing it out. One of the head honchos had actually used the term 'supply and demand' in his statement to justify the high ticket prices. You have painstakingly explained it. Thanks. :-) -- As a proper list etiquette... Please trim your replies. Post your replies below the relevant original text, leaving a line space. Do not re-use old messages to write new ones. Regards, Rony.