On 2002.02.09 06:39 Patrik Stridvall wrote:
You might believe me or you might not, as all people
arguing against
me last time. Be that as it may, that discussing is dead and I will in the future concentrate on "If the LGPL means what you say it does, we don't want the LGPL".
Actually, IYRC, and IIRC, I pretty much agreed with you
that the LGPL
actually WOULD allow one to implement proprietary code simply by releasing small wrapper functions as LGPL code.
Yes, but you was one of the few. Alexandre in particular seemed to believe it depended on some strange notation of whether it was intentional or.
In some ways it is. Many times when entities are violating some license or law a decision is partly based on what exactly their intentions were. Although I would not like to rely on this and I think clarifying what and what is not allowed is better than leaving it up to good intentions.
Yes, but in the case of copyright it doesn't really make much sense. For determining the punishment for any infringment, yes. For determining whether something infringes, no.
And sure I guess hiding behind fair use is harder if you intent is bad.
However does the Joe Hacker in my earlier example that used a propriety library to avoid dual booting and shared it with fellow hobbyists have "intent to infringe"?
I claim that every work either violates copyright in and of itself or not at all. Nothing else makes much sense. How can you determine the intent of the author of work, if for example the author is anonymous. Sure if the author or the process of authorship is unknown you really can't claim indepent derivation if you (not the author) distribute the work and if some judge thinks it similar enough with another work to infringe. However that judgement was for obvious reason made by examination of the work in and of itself.
Thus TransGaming does not hurt. Lindows really doesn't hurt either, and the users of Lindows win because should they need to
update the LGPL
components of Wine they can do so and still continue to link to Lindows binary only components.
Exactly, but they will be able to do that without the LGPL. It is in the respective companies intrest to make it so.
If that is so, then why aren't they doing it already?
1. Lack of time. 2. Lack of insight what their users might want. 3. Lack of concerned users.
I'm sure you can find more reasons.
Now you may consider this not enough to stop the less honourable companies. Yeah, you're right. Lindows can continue to build upon wine, add their own stuff, and release a product. The only difference is that now they can't just fold all the wine code into the binary.. they have to allow the user to update the wine code. That is the purpose of the LGPL. Unlike the GPL which tries to make all software free software, the LGPL tries to keep free software as free software, and proprietary software as proprietary software.
Yes. But that is NOT an argument for using LGPL as I have
said above.
Sure it is. The LGPL's purpose in life is to make sure the users of the program can continue to recompile the code that was LGPL to begin with.
OK. Reformulate. There is no reason to force this to happend, since it is likely to happend eventually anyway. See below.
Now let's say we take the stricter interpretation that you cannot do the above. That is bad I think.
How about going to LGPL and add a clause that clarifies that the above is in fact allowed?
Why confuse the company lawyer even more?
Even if I would be inclined to agree, I would rather let
the FSF lawyers
draw up a completely new license lets call it, hmm, MGPL (Middleware GPL), for use in, hmm, what should I call it, say two-ended
libraries that Wine
IMHO really is.
This MGPL should clarify that it is legal to "plug-in" proprietary application/libraries in both ends while code the middle that is the Wine source code should have some copyleft like protection and additional that sublicening the code as LGPL is allowed.
Note however I'm not really proposing this but it might be
a reasonable
compromise. Perhaps something for the LGPL camp to chew on.
What you describe sounds to me like what I am describing. A modified and clarified LGPL. Essentially when you start adding or deleting from the LGPL you are in fact making a new license. You are saying the same thing I am.
As you wish, this is of no moment.
[SNIP] [Quote Dennis Miller: Y'know.. I don't want to get off on a rant here...]
When the voters give any of them support, the problem is that they didn't really support the extreme views they presented, but they are forced to do it anyway in order of not being accussed of betraying the will of the voter.
You can thank the "liberal" media for that one. :-(
Well, that is just the symptom. The ignorant masses are the real problem IMHO.
Unfortunately, there is no serious alternative to democracy, so I'm a loss what to do. :-(
True. Actually, I think the media is more of a symptom of politicians catering to them for years now.
Well of course they do since that is one of the few way they can reach their voters. It is still the ignorant masses that are the real problem unfortunately.
Increased education will only get you so far and it is never any substitute for logical thinking.
Of course, the ignorant masses really gets what they deserve.
I primarily think it is unfortunate that I live in the same world as them.
Look at the administration now. They don't take any shit and just tell it like it is. Bush may not be an excellent speaker but he seems to say what's on his mind and doesn't try to always be the media's bitch like Billy-boy and his wife did.
Sometimes the ignorant masses are lucky sometimes they are not.
Lets return the easy problem of finding of good license for
Wine. :-)
Yeah, sorry, just had to get off on a little rant about the media.
:-)
Especially see MSNBC. What a crock of shit that is.. figures, it being a MS product and all :-). The reporters on that station are just horrible. They ask a question and when they get a totally straight answer that they don't agree with they just ask it again and again changing a few words to make it seem like it's a different question.
Well, people watch the shit, so they get what the deserve.
Unfortunately it hurt us other as well, but then we really can't limit their freedom of speech, can we?
Yeah, doesn't that suck. Kind of like people use proprietary software so they get what they deserve. We can't stop them from using it as that limits the freedom's of the proprietary software companies and the users who want to use that software. However what we can do is remove the need to use proprietary software. Wine is a first step towards this.
Yes, but I never think the need for proprietary software will disappear.
In the cases of Wine. I hope that the people working with the Wine project are not among the ignorant masses and thus really are able to understand the subtle differences between different positions.
Yeah, so far it only seems like the people who caught
this story on
slashdot are among the ignorant masses. :-/
I wouldn't really call them the ignorant masses but rather the I-can-almost-but-not-quite-understand-this masses. Since they don't fully understand it they assume that it is something bad and post their unordered thoughts in hope that other might make something out of it.
Yeah, sometimes a little knowledge is far worse than none at all. Usually this is only the case when people think that a little knowledge makes them an expert and get big-egos.
Very true.
We should collectively think of the different scenarios and ask one very important question: Do we /really/ want to prevent this
scenario from
happening?
Ah, I forgot that very important question. I intend to supply it but somehow it got lost. But perhaps the question:
- Do you consider his or her behavior morally or ethically
defendable?
sums it up pretty well as well.
Sounds kind of like my.. do you think it should be allowed question, although put in a better way.
Ah yes, you are right, we probably should ask the opposite question as well:
Do you consider it morally or ethically defendable to prevent this behavior?
Personally I have warmed up a slight bit to the idea of Lindows. At first I was a bit like.. those dickheads took wine, added a few things, and are gonna sell it for $100/seat and we're not getting any of that or even any improvements back!? That bites.
But now I realize that we need to put that emotion aside and look at how exactly lindows harms wine (which it does).
The first thing is the issue of binary-only wine that can't be changed and has absolutely no source. That really bites for the user
who is thus
locked into Lindows complete package and cannot even change the parts of wine that Lindows has nothing to do with.
If Lindows prevents users from updating their version of Wine it is really their and their users problems not our problem.
This is simply not true. This is very much Wine's problem. If I need some of Lindows's functionality to run my program but would still like to be able to hack on other parts of Wine then I, as a developer and user, am screwed.
So complain with Lindows support or abandon Lindows and use something else or whatever. Eventually they will learn to listen to their customers.
If we were LGPL and allowed importing functions from non-LGPL components then Lindows could still add value by implementing APIs in their own DLL or DLLs and loading them from wine. In fact, they don't need to be DLLs. They could just put all their stuff in their own closed source file, compile it, and distribute the .o so that end users (their customers) can later take that .o file plus the LGPLd modifications to wine that make it use the functions in that .o, and link it into a newer version of wine.
I don't see why we should adapt our license to cater for people that make bad choices and suffer because of it. Especially when such a license might scare other people that might help us away.
Because people make mad choices every day and don't realize it.
Indeed, but stupidity is its own reward.
We cannot put our work on the line and say "Well, hopefully no one will make bad choices with it".
You can never prevent people from doing bad choice with a product: "Design a product even an idiot can use and only an idiot will use it"
Regardless of any fun you might have had. Ask this question:
Would you have consider it ethically or morally defendable if the Wine license had prevented you from using a proprietary ASPI library with Wine and distributing the result to your friends.
YES! That is my point. I would have done it anyway even if their was a proprietary version. And I think it is important that we allow people to use and distribute proprietary components with a free software Wine.
Agreed.
Anyway.. these are just two.. there are more I'm sure.. I really need to go to bed though.
Different time zones. I returned from a late breakfast to find your mail. :-)
Hmm, well, I suppose about the time I sent it I could've gone to an early breakfast since it was like 5am.
Well, my father usual gets up at that time. :-)
What was it, like noon or 1 where you are?
I recieve that mail at 11.20 am.
Speaking of time it is now 1.00 am for me. Time for bed as soon as I finish answering this.
Before I do so, I would like to point you to the
wxWindows website.
According to their short license summary they use LGPL but also allow you to distribute a binary linking with wxWindows included. That exception would not be appropriate for wine (in fact, it's like the main advantage for us to use the LGPL I think). However we could do a
similar style
thing and say: "We're LGPL but we specifically allow you to create stub functions in our library that call out to your
proprietary component.
See my suggestion about the "MGPL" instead.
This is really the same thing as a clarified LGPL. It's not necessary to write from the ground up a new license, but if we need to take the LGPL and strike out certain sections and/or add to it then that is far better than writing a new license completely from scratch.
No, it is not, because we want the license to be very clear on what is allowed and what is not. No patchwork. A clear license with only the absolute minimum number of paragraphs.
Remember we want companies working on Wine without having to spend to much money on their lawyers.
Hopefully we can get this resolved this time... It's looking promising given the few and far between somewhat clear posts and disregarding the ill-informed wanna-be-on-slashdot shit.
We will see. I'm neither optimistic nor pessimistic for the moment.
Well, I /hope/ we can get this resolved since we're talking about the same things. Your only real concern at this point seems to be that if we were to move to LGPL that some companies may not like it because it's complex.
Basicly but I very much fear that even a MGPL would be to complex.
They can pay lawyers to figure it out for them. Why do you think lawyers make all the money anyway.
Because the money that they can avoid spending on lawyers could be spent on improving Wine instead.
On 2002.02.09 19:18 Patrik Stridvall wrote:
David Elliott wrote:
On 2002.02.09 06:39 Patrik Stridvall wrote:
[SNIP]
In some ways it is. Many times when entities are violating some license or law a decision is partly based on what exactly their intentions were. Although I would not like to rely on this and I think clarifying what and what is not allowed is better than leaving it up to good intentions.
Yes, but in the case of copyright it doesn't really make much sense. For determining the punishment for any infringment, yes. For determining whether something infringes, no.
And sure I guess hiding behind fair use is harder if you intent is bad.
Sorry, should have clarified that more. It is true that intent is used in the punishment phase, usually not the actual trial.
However does the Joe Hacker in my earlier example that used a propriety library to avoid dual booting and shared it with fellow hobbyists have "intent to infringe"?
This is pointless to discuss. I don't want a license where no one can possibly link wine with binary components. The LGPL does not prohibit that.
[SNIP]
Thus TransGaming does not hurt. Lindows really doesn't hurt either, and the users of Lindows win because should they need to
update the LGPL
components of Wine they can do so and still continue to link to Lindows binary only components.
Exactly, but they will be able to do that without the LGPL. It is in the respective companies intrest to make it so.
If that is so, then why aren't they doing it already?
- Lack of time.
- Lack of insight what their users might want.
- Lack of concerned users.
I'm sure you can find more reasons.
Because the current license allows them to get away with it.
[SNIP]
Sure it is. The LGPL's purpose in life is to make sure the users of the program can continue to recompile the code that was LGPL to begin with.
OK. Reformulate. There is no reason to force this to happend, since it is likely to happend eventually anyway. See below.
No, there is EVERY reason to enforce this.
[SNIP]
Even if I would be inclined to agree, I would rather let
the FSF lawyers
draw up a completely new license lets call it, hmm, MGPL (Middleware GPL), for use in, hmm, what should I call it, say two-ended
libraries that Wine
IMHO really is.
This MGPL should clarify that it is legal to "plug-in" proprietary application/libraries in both ends while code the middle that is the Wine source code should have some copyleft like protection and additional that sublicening the code as LGPL is allowed.
Note however I'm not really proposing this but it might be
a reasonable
compromise. Perhaps something for the LGPL camp to chew on.
What you describe sounds to me like what I am describing. A modified and clarified LGPL. Essentially when you start adding or deleting from the LGPL you are in fact making a new license. You are saying the same thing I am.
As you wish, this is of no moment.
See below.
[SNIP offtopic stuff about politics]
Of course, the ignorant masses really gets what they deserve.
I primarily think it is unfortunate that I live in the same world as them.
hehe :-)
[SNIP more stuff about politics]
Yeah, doesn't that suck. Kind of like people use proprietary software so they get what they deserve. We can't stop them from using it as that limits the freedom's of the proprietary software companies and the users who want to use that software. However what we can do is remove the need to use proprietary software. Wine is a first step towards this.
Yes, but I never think the need for proprietary software will disappear.
Obviously not in the grand scheme of things. But basic day to day tasks like just being able to use your computer should not require proprietary software. I would extend basic tasks to basic word processing and web-browsing functionality. Your typical Linux distribution is already at that point. The only thing missing is the ability to continue to run the Windows based programs that offer extended functionality. Wine fills that need and will help to transition users to a more reasonable and open platform.
Wine is such an important product and yet most of the developers don't really care about its future. Moving users from Windows to some proprietary Windows clone isn't really helping.
[SNIP]
We should collectively think of the different scenarios and ask one very important question: Do we /really/ want to prevent this
scenario from
happening?
Ah, I forgot that very important question. I intend to supply it but somehow it got lost. But perhaps the question:
- Do you consider his or her behavior morally or ethically
defendable?
sums it up pretty well as well.
Sounds kind of like my.. do you think it should be allowed question, although put in a better way.
Ah yes, you are right, we probably should ask the opposite question as well:
Do you consider it morally or ethically defendable to prevent this behavior?
Yes, I think it is morally defendable to prevent people from incorporating Wine into proprietary products. And for most free software projects I think it is morally defendable to prevent people from even linking to them or using them in any proprietary software.
For Wine I think by nature we must let people link to proprietary software.
[SNIP]
This is simply not true. This is very much Wine's problem. If I need some of Lindows's functionality to run my program but would still like to be able to hack on other parts of Wine then I, as a developer and user, am screwed.
So complain with Lindows support or abandon Lindows and use something else or whatever. Eventually they will learn to listen to their customers.
This laissez-faire attitude really bothers me. You say you care, but in reality you don't.
[SNIP]
We cannot put our work on the line and say "Well, hopefully no one will make bad choices with it".
You can never prevent people from doing bad choice with a product: "Design a product even an idiot can use and only an idiot will use it"
This is not the same thing. What I would like to accomplish is to prevent people from incorporating Wine into proprietary products. I don't want to depend on the users of these proprietary products. Besides dude.. what company listens to their customers anymore anyway.
Regardless of any fun you might have had. Ask this question:
Would you have consider it ethically or morally defendable if the Wine license had prevented you from using a proprietary ASPI library with Wine and distributing the result to your friends.
YES! That is my point. I would have done it anyway even if their was a proprietary version. And I think it is important that we allow people to use and distribute proprietary components with a free software Wine.
Agreed.
[SNIP discussion on time zones]
See my suggestion about the "MGPL" instead.
This is really the same thing as a clarified LGPL. It's not necessary to write from the ground up a new license, but if we need to take the LGPL and strike out certain sections and/or add to it then that is far better than writing a new license completely from scratch.
No, it is not, because we want the license to be very clear on what is allowed and what is not. No patchwork. A clear license with only the absolute minimum number of paragraphs.
Remember we want companies working on Wine without having to spend to much money on their lawyers.
ARGH!!!!! Licensing software is complex. If the only argument you have against the LGPL is that it is complex, then tough cookies. The only licenses that are extremely simple are the ones that either say "Do whatever with it" or the ones that say "We'll take your firstborn if you reverse engineer it".
This argument that the LGPL is too complex is a waste of time. It reminds me of microsofts shared source license. One of its strong points was that it was simple. Know why it was simple? Because you couldn't do shit with the source so it was simple. At the other extreme we have the X11 which is simple, because you can do almost everything with it.
The very nature of moving to a license like the LGPL means it will be complex. This doesn't mean it has to be incomprehensible (and it isn't) it just means it'll be complex.
Hopefully we can get this resolved this time... It's looking promising given the few and far between somewhat clear posts and disregarding the ill-informed wanna-be-on-slashdot shit.
We will see. I'm neither optimistic nor pessimistic for the moment.
Well, I /hope/ we can get this resolved since we're talking about the same things. Your only real concern at this point seems to be that if we were to move to LGPL that some companies may not like it because it's complex.
Basicly but I very much fear that even a MGPL would be to complex.
So then I nailed it. You're only real concern seems to be that companies may shy away from Wine if the license is so complex. I wouldn't be that concerned about it. Had Wine been LGPL, Lindows probably still would exist and would be playing more nicely with us.
They can pay lawyers to figure it out for them. Why do you think lawyers make all the money anyway.
Because the money that they can avoid spending on lawyers could be spent on improving Wine instead.
If you take the average software company, more likely it'll be spent on a private jet for the CEO.
Anyway... this mail is getting really long, and if the biggest argument you can come up with against the LGPL is that it's too complex then it is pointless to continue.
-Dave
-
David Elliott -
Patrik Stridvall