Antonio Olivares wrote:

There is nothing to interpret. If you don't like what
the license
actually says, why do you keep defending it?


He might defend the good parts of the license


I preferred not to respond to Les because he insists on putting words in
my mouth. In fact, I do like what the GPL actually says very much.
That is why I not only defend it, but use it for my own software.


In my opinion, *all* of the parts of the license are good.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

> >> There is nothing to interpret. If you don't
> like what
> >> the license
> >> actually says, why do you keep defending it?
> >
> > He might defend the good parts of the license
>
> I preferred not to respond to Les because he insists on
> putting words in
> my mouth. In fact, I do like what the GPL actually says
> very much.
> That is why I not only defend it, but use it for my own
> software.
>
> In my opinion, *all* of the parts of the license are good.
>
> --

Gordon,

I respect your stance on the license issue. In fact I would agree that most of the parts are good. Many projects use the license which shows that it is not totally bad. There are however certain restrictions and gotchas. For instance in the Open Source Definitions

http://opensource.org/docs/osd

The GPL could violate 9)

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

The bad part is the one that hurts. The one where you have to do ... in order to _____. They take away your freedom as the sole author of a certain project. They are in control and not you, they can dictate what needs to be done at any time. This could be a potential downfall of it.

http://www.topology.org/linux/gpl.html

Regards,

Antonio




--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Antonio Olivares wrote:


I respect your stance on the license issue. In fact I would agree
that most of the parts are good. Many projects use the license which
shows that it is not totally bad. There are however certain
restrictions and gotchas. For instance in the Open Source
Definitions

http://opensource.org/docs/osd

The GPL could violate 9)

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software



"The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license
must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium
must be open-source software. "


The final passage of the GPL makes it clear that there is no intention
on the copyright holder's part to claim that the GPL must apply to
"other software". Therefore it does not contradict or violate the 9th
guideline for the OSD.



The bad part is the one that hurts. The one where you have to do ...
in order to _____. They take away your freedom as the sole author of
a certain project.


No they don't, and they can not. If you are the sole author of a
certain project, then you can license it in any way that you want,
including under multiple different licenses, or changing the license at
any time (though not retroactively).


--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Les Mikesell wrote:

Gordon Messmer wrote:
That statement is a little ambiguous. The GPL does not have any power
which copyright law does not grant. Specifically, it can not change
the terms of work licensed under any terms other than its own and it
can not force you to accept any other or additional terms on such work.


The GPL doesn't change terms on anything else and I've never implied
that it can or does.


You have repeatedly insisted exactly that.

> However, it only grants permissions beyond

copyright restrictions if you comply with its terms


There's a cost associated with someone using a product that someone else
created? Shocking!


If the FSF doesn't not believe that the work-as-a-whole clause
actually means the terms must cover the work as a whole, why don't
they make another license that says what they want it to mean?


You're still not getting what "work as a whole" means. First, you
have to understand that legal interpretation of terms is not like
English interpretation. Legal terms have specific meanings which are
sometimes
different than English meanings because language tends to change and
evolve with people's use of it. Legal terms do not change.


I understand that there can be some contention about what a 'derived
work' is. But there can be no confusion about what the GPL says about
the components, once you agree that a work is derived and thus
encumbered by the terms.


You're changing the basis of your argument, but you're not providing any
more or better evidence for the position that you're arguing. The GPL
does not and can not "encumber" works that were included under
compatible licenses. Their original terms continue to apply. This is a
fundamental component of copyright law.


In the context of a legal interpretation of a distribution license
(copyright license), "work as a whole" does not mean each individual
part.


Of course it does, or proprietary parts could be included - or linkages
that make them a required part of the work as a whole.


Proprietary parts can not be included because the GPL specifically
prohibits terms more restrictive than its own to be applied to the work
as a whole.


I'll reiterate my previous point: The work as a whole is a functional
sum of all of the parts. If some component of a work contains
restrictive licensing, then the sum of the licenses would be more
restrictive than the GPL. Since the GPL forbids this, you may not
distribute a work that includes GPL licensed parts and proprietary parts.


Exactly the same thing, said another way: Including a proprietary
component would create a de facto proprietary work as a whole. The
terms of the GPL prohibit using GPL components in a proprietary work as
a whole.


"Work as a whole" does not mean all of the components, it means the sum
of the components. A work which is partially GPL and partially some
other compatible license does not become licensed only under the GPL by
law, by intent, or by magic. The work is licensed under several
licenses, each of which apply to separate components. The terms of the
GPL don't override the terms of any other license; instead they prohibit
creating a whole work which includes components under incompatible licenses.


In other words, when a work contains GPL and BSD licensed code, and you
distribute that work to another party, you are required to offer them
the source code to both the GPL and BSD licensed code. This is not
because the terms of the GPL apply in some way to the BSD components, it
is because if you do not agree to distribute the source code to the BSD
components, then you aren't allowed to distribute the GPL components either.


None of the terms of the GPL require that you give up the rights that
you were granted by the copyright holder who gave you -- either
directly or indirectly -- code under a compatible license.


Yes they do. The concept of 'compatible license' shows specifically how
you must give them up. Compatible licenses are ones that permit you to
do what the GPL demands. If you weren't required to apply the GPL terms
to all parts, then all other licenses would be compatible.


That argument is founded on the incorrect understanding that "work as a
whole" means all of the parts individually, rather than the sum of the
parts. The former meaning is unenforceable under copyright law.


Even after distributing a work under the GPL, you may extract the
parts under a compatible license and distribute those parts, only,
under the terms of their own license. The recipients of your GPL
licensed work as a whole may do the same.


If, and only if, they have no need to agree to the GPL terms. Doing
both at the same time is a contradiction in logic and dishonest even if
you are unlikely to be sued over it.


I think you have a warped sense of honesty. As a developer, and as a
vocal advocate of the GPL as a license, I can't imagine anything that's
dishonest about using someone else's code according to the terms of
*their* license.


That is, if I receive a work composed of both GPL and BSD parts, and I
want to use the BSD parts under the BSD license, there is nothing
remotely illegal or unethical about doing so. I'm obeying the terms of
the license set forth by the only person with the legal or moral right
to dictate them.


--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Gordon Messmer wrote:


The GPL doesn't change terms on anything else and I've never implied
that it can or does.


You have repeatedly insisted exactly that.


I've stated that is the practical effect, but the license can only
control your actions, not anyone else's terms. You are only given two
choices for those actions. You either don't do anything that copyright
law would prohibit or you apply exactly the GPL terms to all parts of
the work.



> However, it only grants permissions beyond

copyright restrictions if you comply with its terms


There's a cost associated with someone using a product that someone else
created? Shocking!


To someone used to BSD, MPL, CDDL, etc. licenses that do not restrict
sharing or improvement of covered code, it is.


I understand that there can be some contention about what a 'derived
work' is. But there can be no confusion about what the GPL says about
the components, once you agree that a work is derived and thus
encumbered by the terms.


You're changing the basis of your argument, but you're not providing any
more or better evidence for the position that you're arguing. The GPL
does not and can not "encumber" works that were included under
compatible licenses.


What it restricts is your actions, by your agreement to its terms. And
without that agreement you have the full restrictions of copyright law.


Their original terms continue to apply. This is a
fundamental component of copyright law.


Yes, but per your agreement to the GPL terms you can no longer use those
terms yourself. You've agreed not to.


In the context of a legal interpretation of a distribution license
(copyright license), "work as a whole" does not mean each individual
part.


Of course it does, or proprietary parts could be included - or
linkages that make them a required part of the work as a whole.


Proprietary parts can not be included because the GPL specifically
prohibits terms more restrictive than its own to be applied to the work
as a whole.


There is nothing about more/less restrictive terms in section 2b. The
terms must be exactly as specified in the license. If you don't agree
to that you are not complying with the license.


I'll reiterate my previous point: The work as a whole is a functional
sum of all of the parts. If some component of a work contains
restrictive licensing, then the sum of the licenses would be more
restrictive than the GPL. Since the GPL forbids this, you may not
distribute a work that includes GPL licensed parts and proprietary parts.


Likewise for something less restrictive.

Exactly the same thing, said another way: Including a proprietary
component would create a de facto proprietary work as a whole. The
terms of the GPL prohibit using GPL components in a proprietary work as
a whole.


They prohibit using any other license. Please point out the exception
you've found. There is nothing that permits any different terms.


"Work as a whole" does not mean all of the components, it means the sum
of the components.


That doesn't make any sense.

A work which is partially GPL and partially some
other compatible license does not become licensed only under the GPL by
law, by intent, or by magic.


If you cannot distribute under exactly GPL terms, you can't distribute.
Compatible licenses, by definition, are those that permit this to happen.


The work is licensed under several
licenses, each of which apply to separate components. The terms of the
GPL don't override the terms of any other license; instead they prohibit
creating a whole work which includes components under incompatible
licenses.


The alternative licenses in dual-licensed works can be used by people
who have not agreed to the GPL terms.


In other words, when a work contains GPL and BSD licensed code, and you
distribute that work to another party, you are required to offer them
the source code to both the GPL and BSD licensed code. This is not
because the terms of the GPL apply in some way to the BSD components, it
is because if you do not agree to distribute the source code to the BSD
components, then you aren't allowed to distribute the GPL components
either.


Yes, note how the GPL applies to all parts - because you agreed to apply
it. And you won't find any exceptions to that rule that let you stop
applying it.


None of the terms of the GPL require that you give up the rights that
you were granted by the copyright holder who gave you -- either
directly or indirectly -- code under a compatible license.


Yes they do. The concept of 'compatible license' shows specifically
how you must give them up. Compatible licenses are ones that permit
you to do what the GPL demands. If you weren't required to apply the
GPL terms to all parts, then all other licenses would be compatible.


That argument is founded on the incorrect understanding that "work as a
whole" means all of the parts individually, rather than the sum of the
parts. The former meaning is unenforceable under copyright law.


Copyright law is irrelevant. You agree to these terms. Or you can't
distribute the GPL part. You can agree to any terms you want - or are
forced to.


If, and only if, they have no need to agree to the GPL terms. Doing
both at the same time is a contradiction in logic and dishonest even
if you are unlikely to be sued over it.


I think you have a warped sense of honesty. As a developer, and as a
vocal advocate of the GPL as a license, I can't imagine anything that's
dishonest about using someone else's code according to the terms of
*their* license.


The point is that the licenses are contradictory. You can't abide by
the terms of the GPL while doing something it prohibits but another
license permits.


That is, if I receive a work composed of both GPL and BSD parts, and I
want to use the BSD parts under the BSD license, there is nothing
remotely illegal or unethical about doing so. I'm obeying the terms of
the license set forth by the only person with the legal or moral right
to dictate them.


No, the GPL author has the right to make you agree not to use any other
terms but his own choice on parts that are included in a derived work -
or to prohibit that work from being shared. My argument is not about
rights, but rather that it is morally wrong to require this agreement
from others both because of the nature of the choice and the prohibition
of many potential works where the demand can't be met.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 10:29 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:

> which is an interesting read as well. Here's a quote taken directly from it
>
> "if you add 'large pieces of originality' to the code which are valid
> for copyright protection on their own, you may choose to put a
> different and separate (must be non-conflicting...) license at the top
> of the file above the existing license." He then suggested, "if you
> wish for everyone to remain friends, you should give code back. That
> means (at some ethical or friendliness level) you probably do not want
> to put a GPL at the top of a BSD or ISC file, because you would be
> telling the people who wrote the BSD or ISC file, 'thanks for what you
> wrote, but this is a one-way street, you give us code, and we take it,
> we give you you nothing back.'"
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Antonio

Good point, give and take is not a bad way to live. Me, I'm using the
GPL because I expect people to take a shot at it, to give me back
improvements, and the wheel turns. Knowing that is what I want to do,
and knowing beforehand the elements of the GPL license, in my case I'm
happy as a clam. Plus, there is the element of control that no one will
take it and run off to make a buck on it, without getting their pants
sued off. But, I wouldn't want someone to port it to BSD and use their
license to allow others to do that, run with it for a fast buck. Tit for
tat. Ric


--
----------------------------------------------------
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar
https://oar.dev.java.net/
Verizon Cell # 336-254-1339
-----------------------------------------------------

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>>> Your wording is too ambiguous and you associate unusual politics with
>>> some of those words so I have no idea what you intend.
>>
>> Tell me which words, and I'll point out they're present in the GPL as
>> well, and you don't seem to have any trouble (mis)interpreting it.

> Yes, of course the GPL misrepresents words to make restrictions sound
> like freedom. That's the reason it exists. But the CDDL, MPL, etc.,
> do nothing to conflict with the terms you specify.

Yet somehow they do conflict with the terms of the GPL, intentionally
and by design. Tell me, how is it possible for them to conflict with
the GPL, and not with this licenselet I proposed? Where do you see a
difference?

> I want to hear your plan for that. Or any possible plan.

I presented it already. It's upthread, just 2 round-trips up.

In addition to a lawyer to help you decide which of the two
conflicting interpretations of the GPL you have is the right one,
please go see a doctor for your memory problems :-)

> And it is a direct cause of not having a fully competitive, mostly
> free, alternative to the monopoly product.

And yet somehow the various *BSD variants exist and haven't
accomplished that. Could this argument possibly hold any less water?

> If I need to be more explicit, just as certain extreme leftist
> political systems eliminate incentives to productivity, copyleft terms
> eliminate incentives to creativity.

I'm a bit surprised you equal GPL to communism, rather than Free
Software to communism like most other FUD-spreaders do. Next on their
list of 'Free' things to eliminate is 'Free market', 'Free press' and
'Free speech', and let 'Copyrights' trample 'Human rights', for
there's no money in the latter. See ACTA, Budapest convention, and
the ongoing behind-the-scenes discussions in the international customs
organization and G8.

> No, in my scenario, you are the one doing the funding. Not some
> imaginary first customer that you make up.

On Jul 24, 2008, *Les* *Mikesell* <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why would your customer pay for that first copy, knowing no one else
> has to share the cost?

Who made it up, again?

>> If they do, per your argument, they'd be losing the ability to recover
>> part of their costs. Why would they?

> Because they can.

And if they do, why should I care? I've already been paid! It's in
*their* interest to recover those costs now.

> How can you ever ensure, or even encourage a fair distribution of
> the development cost of a large work?

There's no way to ensure it. You may just as well write software with
an expectation to sell, but that doesn't sell. You may get fewer
customers that you expected. Or more. How would *you* ensure fair
distribution of development costs?

I offered a plan that is compatible with the GPL (and any other Free
Software license, for that matter), and that doesn't disrespect
anyone's freedom in the process, and that ensures I get my payment if
I can find enough initial customers to fund the development work. If
they don't fund it, I may decide not to do it, or to do it on my own
risk. Just like any other kind of software development.

It doesn't make much sense to pretend Free Software or even the GPL is
special in this regard, in a world in which less than 1% of the IT
industry income is out of software licensing fees, and more than 40%
is out of services, including software development.

Sure, this does make a difference for those who believe the aberration
of the proprietary license sale model. That doesn't work for Free
Software, and it won't work for software in general for very long.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Alexandre Oliva wrote:




Yes, of course the GPL misrepresents words to make restrictions sound
like freedom. That's the reason it exists. But the CDDL, MPL, etc.,
do nothing to conflict with the terms you specify.


Yet somehow they do conflict with the terms of the GPL, intentionally
and by design.


It is the GPL that was designed to conflict with others, including the
original BSD.



Tell me, how is it possible for them to conflict with
the GPL, and not with this licenselet I proposed? Where do you see a
difference?


Your wording is about providing rights. The GPL wording is about
restricting all derivatives to only exactly its own terms.



I want to hear your plan for that. Or any possible plan.


I presented it already. It's upthread, just 2 round-trips up.


If you mean where you said one customer would pay for it all, that's not
a plan, it's a fairy tale.



In addition to a lawyer to help you decide which of the two
conflicting interpretations of the GPL you have is the right one,
please go see a doctor for your memory problems :-)


I think you are the one who forgot I wanted the plan for something that
a single customer could not afford. Or something that would require you
to have a team of programmers to complete.



And it is a direct cause of not having a fully competitive, mostly
free, alternative to the monopoly product.


And yet somehow the various *BSD variants exist and haven't
accomplished that. Could this argument possibly hold any less water?


OS X is derived from BSD work, and is an excellent example of what can
be accomplished. But Apple can get by with a somewhat limited driver
set and they aren't really in the OS business. While BSD was fighting
the legal battle that made free unix-like systems possible, Linux stole
most of the development work, trapping the contributions with
GPL-restrictions and making them unusable for anything else. So now the
widest base of drivers is trapped by those restrictions.



If I need to be more explicit, just as certain extreme leftist
political systems eliminate incentives to productivity, copyleft terms
eliminate incentives to creativity.


I'm a bit surprised you equal GPL to communism, rather than Free
Software to communism like most other FUD-spreaders do.


FUD-spreaders see free software as competition. I'm not a FUD-spreader
or a software distributer. I want more and better software as a user
and potential customer - and I want it to be available to everyone else
as well. Available and affordable software is a much more significant
goal than free software. The GPL restrictions prevent many ways that
existing software could be improved.



Next on their
list of 'Free' things to eliminate is 'Free market', 'Free press' and
'Free speech', and let 'Copyrights' trample 'Human rights', for
there's no money in the latter. See ACTA, Budapest convention, and
the ongoing behind-the-scenes discussions in the international customs
organization and G8.


I don't care what is on anyone else's list. I want to see free software
in use instead of losing an all-or-nothing battle as it has continued to
do for decades.



No, in my scenario, you are the one doing the funding. Not some
imaginary first customer that you make up.


On Jul 24, 2008, *Les* *Mikesell* <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:


Why would your customer pay for that first copy, knowing no one else
has to share the cost?


Who made it up, again?


If you believe the GPL leaves some business plan possible to fund the
creation of a large new work, please explain it.



If they do, per your argument, they'd be losing the ability to recover
part of their costs. Why would they?



Because they can.


And if they do, why should I care? I've already been paid! It's in
*their* interest to recover those costs now.


Not gonna happen.


I offered a plan that is compatible with the GPL (and any other Free
Software license, for that matter), and that doesn't disrespect
anyone's freedom in the process, and that ensures I get my payment if
I can find enough initial customers to fund the development work. If
they don't fund it, I may decide not to do it, or to do it on my own
risk. Just like any other kind of software development.


No, you made up an imaginary customer that would do something
irrational. And it is nothing like ordinary software development where
you can target a price that large numbers of customers can/will pay.



It doesn't make much sense to pretend Free Software or even the GPL is
special in this regard, in a world in which less than 1% of the IT
industry income is out of software licensing fees, and more than 40%
is out of services, including software development.


There is no similarity at all. Most complex software would not exist
without a workable plan to recover development costs. There are a few
notable exceptions to this in the free software world but they aren't
repeatable.



Sure, this does make a difference for those who believe the aberration
of the proprietary license sale model. That doesn't work for Free
Software, and it won't work for software in general for very long.


I don't think we are even close to the end of complex innovations in
software that don't fit the free model very well. I expect more decades
of niche use of GPL-restricted code.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 11:58 -0400,
Michael.Coll-Barth@VerizonWireless.com wrote:
> > From: Antonio Olivares
>
> > To cat the free fish living in the sea, Les will need more
> > than a free boat.
> >
> > He will also need Nets,
> <snip>
> > He does need much more? Yes GNU provides these things, but
> > he does not want to give credit to them His company is
> > Les Fishery Inc., Not Les/GNU Fishery Inc.
>
> Good Grief! You almost make me want to stay as far away from GNU as
> possible. At least with MS, I give them my money, I get no religion and
> they go away.

Exactly. It's the biggest problem there is with Linux; the cult of the
New Flagellants.

--LX

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list