Re: Licensing response and an idea
Thanks for an enlightening post, Gav. //DISCLAIMER - I AM JUST AN ORDINARY USER - SO DON'T READ IF YOU DON'T FEEL LIKE I am not a developer (yet). But I truly believe in the spirit of OpenSource Free software. I have reported some bug reports, but I would really like to contribute more. When I first heard about a (very) possible licens change to GPL I thought it was a great Idea, because I hate companies who take code and don't contribute back. With the current license this is possible. But I also think it would be a shame for companies with good intentions (as Transgaming) who (maybe:) will contribute all there code back, and make very fast directed code to wine. I would also be very delighted to pay money directly to the wine project because I like it and use it. An important note is that this is what I do with everything that I buy. When I by music, it is because I like it and have heard it and want's to support the artist. Same with movies. I know this is not the way the corporate world works at the moment, but I can pirate music/video/software very easily and therefore they have to trust me to pay for what I want's to pay to. Phew, hope I didn't confuse all of you (like I confused my self:) But the point is, I really like to make contribution to a gratis project if it is GPL'ed or dual licensed (for 'good' corporations). Many of the people I know has the same 'Ideology' as me, and don't pirate things they think aren't sh**t. And after I have changed to linux and opensource, I have actually pirated a lot less, because all stuff are free, and the things that aren't 'stands out', so to speak. Just my .02$ (and maybe more if it goes as I hope:) //lean Ps. Hope I send this mail to the right place
At 04:35 PM 2/12/2002, Lean Fuglsang wrote:
I am not a developer (yet). But I truly believe in the spirit of OpenSource Free software.
In which do you believe? The FSF's "Free" software is not open source, because the license discriminates against a group of people and a field of endeavor. --Brett Glass
On ons, 2002-02-13 at 01:46, Brett Glass wrote:
At 04:35 PM 2/12/2002, Lean Fuglsang wrote:
I am not a developer (yet). But I truly believe in the spirit of OpenSource Free software.
In which do you believe? The FSF's "Free" software is not open source, because the license discriminates against a group of people and a field of endeavor.
I don't think I really understand 'field of endeavor', sorry. But it is the FSF's idea of Free software that I like. If I were a software developer developing for a Free project, I wouldn't like people to 'run away' with the code, making it closed source.
Brett Glass wrote:
At 04:35 PM 2/12/2002, Lean Fuglsang wrote:
I am not a developer (yet). But I truly believe in the spirit of OpenSource Free software.
In which do you believe? The FSF's "Free" software is not open source, because the license discriminates against a group of people and a field of endeavor.
With the exception of the copyright holder(s), (L)GPL provides everyone with the same rights. The license does not discriminate between developers and "potential developers".
At 01:13 PM 2/13/2002, Christopher Dewey wrote:
With the exception of the copyright holder(s), (L)GPL provides everyone with the same rights. The license does not discriminate between developers and "potential developers".
Not so. The (L)GPL allows everyone to use the code in the way that benefits him or her the most, EXCEPT for developers -- who not only may not use the code but may be exposed to claims of copyright infringement if they even read it in order to learn from it. The (L)GPL is also intended to destroy their markets, businesses, and livelihoods. The (L)GPL is thus extremely discriminatory against programmers. --Brett Glass
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:55, Brett Glass wrote:
At 01:13 PM 2/13/2002, Christopher Dewey wrote:
With the exception of the copyright holder(s), (L)GPL provides everyone with the same rights. The license does not discriminate between developers and "potential developers".
Not so. The (L)GPL allows everyone to use the code in the way that benefits him or her the most, EXCEPT for developers -- who not only may not use the code but may be exposed to claims of copyright infringement if they even read it in order to learn from it. The (L)GPL is also intended to destroy their markets, businesses, and livelihoods. The (L)GPL is thus extremely discriminatory against programmers.
It just forces a different way of making money - charging for your time, not charging for your IP. Revolutionary concept - charge for work done. Doesn't exactly fit with the bill gates of this world, but for small programmers like myself, most of my work is one-offs anyway. (L)GPL just doesn't suit business people. i.e. those expecting to sit back and watch the money roll in. One has to wonder why it matters what other people do with Wine. Wasn't Wine developed because we wanted to run some windoze apps on linux? Who really cares what codeweavers, transgaming etc do to it. Just as long as I can still run my windows apps on linux, I'm happy. If lindows sells a few copies of what is effectively free, what skin is it off our noses?
At 06:39 PM 2/13/2002, Tony Bryant wrote:
It just forces a different way of making money - charging for your time, not charging for your IP.
Which puts programmers "on a treadmill." Stallman states, in "The GNU Manifesto," that this is intended to be a way of effectively "banning" good salaries for programmers. Alas, businesses that try to give away the code and charge for time are rarely more than marginally successful and usually fail.
One has to wonder why it matters what other people do with Wine. Wasn't Wine developed because we wanted to run some windoze apps on linux? Who really cares what codeweavers, transgaming etc do to it. Just as long as I can still run my windows apps on linux, I'm happy. If lindows sells a few copies of what is effectively free, what skin is it off our noses?
Exactly my point. The developers should be glad that they code that they've released is being used by as many people and in as many ways as possible! This is the great thing about the MIT/BSD licenses. --Brett
Brett Glass wrote:
At 01:13 PM 2/13/2002, Christopher Dewey wrote:
With the exception of the copyright holder(s), (L)GPL provides everyone with the same rights. The license does not discriminate between developers and "potential developers".
Not so. The (L)GPL allows everyone to use the code in the way that benefits him or her the most, EXCEPT for developers -- who not only may not use the code but may be exposed to claims of copyright infringement if they even read it in order to learn from it. The (L)GPL is also intended to destroy their markets, businesses, and livelihoods. The (L)GPL is thus extremely discriminatory against programmers.
Brett, you continue to ignore that the (L)GPL implicitly treats *everyone* as programmers, regardless of their occupation, motives, intent, or what they actually end up doing with the software. By painting the license as "discriminatory", and continuing your attacks on the FSF and RMS's politics on this list, you confuse the issue, and do this list and the Wine community a disservice. The issue at hand is that neither the LGPL, nor the current Wine license meet every Wine developer's needs and goals, with the consequense that the development effort spent on Wine may be slowed or fragmented. It's a real problem, and a compromise is required. I'm thankful that the principal Wine developers, including the representatives of commercial interests, all seem very level-headed and pragmatic with regard to the problem. Hopefully they will find a compromise that allows them to pursue their common goals, to the benefit of the greater Wine community.
At 08:13 AM 2/14/2002, Christopher Dewey wrote:
Brett, you continue to ignore that the (L)GPL implicitly treats *everyone* as programmers, regardless of their occupation, motives, intent, or what they actually end up doing with the software.
Not true. It singles out the activities in which only professional programmers need to engage in order to make a living, and penalizes that group specifically by attempting to prevent them from making a living. "The GNU Manifesto" explicitly states this intent.
The issue at hand is that neither the LGPL, nor the current Wine license meet every Wine developer's needs and goals, with the consequense that the development effort spent on Wine may be slowed or fragmented.
Is that possible? What if the goal of some of the developers is simply to sabotage the business models of others?
It's a real problem, and a compromise is required.
The current license is far and away the best compromise. The (L)GPL is not a compromise; it is an extreme. The public domain is the other extreme. The X11 license sits in the middle. --Brett
Brett Glass wrote:
At 08:13 AM 2/14/2002, Christopher Dewey wrote:
Brett, you continue to ignore that the (L)GPL implicitly treats *everyone* as programmers, regardless of their occupation, motives, intent, or what they actually end up doing with the software.
Not true. It singles out the activities in which only professional programmers need to engage in order to make a living, and penalizes that group specifically by attempting to prevent them from making a living. "The GNU Manifesto" explicitly states this intent.
Many professional programmers do their work "for hire", with no say in the license applied to their work, whether it's GPL, BSD or MS-EULA. The GNU Manifesto is off-topic and irrelevant to this discussion; the FSF does not speak for me, nor does it speak for the Wine developers, I dare say.
The issue at hand is that neither the LGPL, nor the current Wine license meet every Wine developer's needs and goals, with the consequense that the development effort spent on Wine may be slowed or fragmented.
Is that possible? What if the goal of some of the developers is simply to sabotage the business models of others?
There have been discussions on Linux gaming fora wrt whether TransGaming and Wine were sabotaging Loki Games' business model. It's bullshit, of course. Sabotage is a bullshit argument here, too. I've seen *nothing* in six years as a Wine user and following Wine development that suggest any of the developers acting in bad faith toward the whole of the Wine community. But more importantly, your accusations of sabotage, and your diatribe against the FSF and Rihcard Stallman do not belong on this list.
It's a real problem, and a compromise is required.
The current license is far and away the best compromise. The (L)GPL is not a compromise; it is an extreme. The public domain is the other extreme. The X11 license sits in the middle.
It's the best for you, perhaps. Jeremy White has expressed that it's no longer the best compromise for *his* business model. You clearly have no respect for that, but then you're not arguing honestly here; you have a political agenda and an axe to grind. Please do it elsewhere.
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:58, Christopher Dewey wrote:
Brett Glass wrote:
The current license is far and away the best compromise. The (L)GPL is not a compromise; it is an extreme. The public domain is the other extreme. The X11 license sits in the middle.
It's the best for you, perhaps. Jeremy White has expressed that it's no longer the best compromise for *his* business model. You clearly have no respect for that, but then you're not arguing honestly here; you have a political agenda and an axe to grind. Please do it elsewhere.
The only problem is that we don't know what the problem is. We have been informed that Jeremy has a problem with the current license but not what the problem is. His solution is to change the license although it may not be in the best interest of Lindows and TransGaming. According to your inference to Brett, he would be showing them no respect to *their* business models. Sean P.S. I am not implying Jeremy is trying to do anything against either Lindows or TransGaming; I am just playing devil's advocate. IOW, no flames please. :) -------------- scf(a)farley.org
It's a real problem, and a compromise is required.
The current license is far and away the best compromise. The (L)GPL is not a compromise; it is an extreme. The public domain is the other extreme. The X11 license sits in the middle.
The words of a man who has no intention, interest or desire to compromise. "There is no need to compromise because my way is the right way." Brett, no one on this list that has read your posts fails to see your point. Some of them disagree, some of them agree, but a) you have no formal say in the decision (of course, you're free to do as you've done and bemoan the issue) and b) you have shown no willingness to look at the points of view of the other members of this list who don't think the same way you do. I think it's time you, to use a phrase, either put up or shut up. If you want people to listen to you more than you've listened to them, then write some code. Then, people might be more interested in what you have to say. Saying "Well, I *might* contribute, so long as you don't change the license" and presuming that your vapourware-work is any sort of argument for people to listen to you and do what you want, is ridiculous, childish and egotistical. We've heard your arguments and attacks on the FSF and RMS. Fine, you've stated your case and made your point. Now let the people that can actually make the decision make it. Regards, Marcus Brubaker
At 12:15 PM 2/14/2002, Marcus Brubaker wrote:
I think it's time you, to use a phrase, either put up or shut up. If you want people to listen to you more than you've listened to them, then write some code.
I'd like to. But I will not release code under an FSF license, so I can only do so if I know that the project won't try to xGPL my work. --Brett
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 03:51:23PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
At 12:15 PM 2/14/2002, Marcus Brubaker wrote:
I think it's time you, to use a phrase, either put up or shut up. If you want people to listen to you more than you've listened to them, then write some code.
I'd like to. But I will not release code under an FSF license, so I can only do so if I know that the project won't try to xGPL my work.
You believe in releasing code under BSD-style licenses, but you refuse to do so unless you have assurances that no one will create a GPLed product from that code as allowed by the BSD license? Hypocritical jerk. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
The issue at hand is that neither the LGPL, nor the current Wine license meet every Wine developer's needs and goals, with the consequense that the development effort spent on Wine may be slowed or fragmented. It's a real problem, and a compromise is required.
I'm thankful that the principal Wine developers, including the representatives of commercial interests, all seem very level-headed and pragmatic with regard to the problem. Hopefully they will find a compromise that allows them to pursue their common goals, to the benefit of the greater Wine community.
.....well said and thats my hope as its been all along....I am not a programmer at this stage in my life albeit I'm learning swiftly, but I do use Linux and its meant a great deal to me to be able to do so from so many different angles I can't begin to tell you. Linux is about choice and open sharing for the greater good and I'm excited about the possibilities laid before me,- and can only hope these matters are settled swiftly and consisely in a way that as Christopher so eloquently summed......is good for the team that has worked so hard to get this far,the greater wine 'community' and likely those that are utilising that same code will decide that the basis on which this was founded warrants respect in said decisions. To do less leads us where ? cu lee -====
participants (8)
-
Brett Glass -
Christopher Dewey -
Lean Fuglsang -
lee johnson -
Marcus Brubaker -
Sean Farley -
Steve Langasek -
Tony Bryant