Daniel Sabo sorry@nospam.com wrote:
[snip]
geez. no need to get bent out of shape. I'll rephrase and say BSD is MORE free than GPL. Happy?
[snip]
Neither the BSD or GPL is free, only public domain is free.
The problem with PD software is this screwed up litigious era we live in the US, it is conceivable that you could get sued for a bug in a PD software you wrote. So, the author isn't free from litigation in this case. The minimum you would probably want is X11/BSD which 1) says it's AS-IS 2) requires the copyright to be preserved (pretty much requried by law) 3) says you can't use the copyright holder in advertising.
BSD and GLP are both contracts with the users.
a license is required so long as there is a copyright.
BSD means "you must include my licences information with anything you make". *GPL means "if you make something from my code you have to share it with
everyone".
well, add the BSD portion to GPL and change the word "share" to "show" (since GPLed software cannot be shared with propriatary linkages) and add "and license it to how I originally licensed it".
Which on you use doesn't depend on freedom, it depends on your goal.
true. though the point I was making was BSD *IS* freer than GPL.
I prefer GPL becuase I see getting back what others make as payment for my work, and yes, I know I'm being selfish.
no one is arguing this point (at least I don't think). The question is whether or not is this would result in a more complete wine since a *GPL license WILL drive away commerical people.
[snip]
In case you hadn't noticed Sony let's you run _Linux_ on a PS2, did that change to BSD without anyone telling me? Big companies like *GPL because they know where they stand and they don't loose an advantage by giving back. Sun and IBM both support *GPL projects, so does SGI and a lot of other very large players.
interesting, though not sure how sony gets away with (from CNET):
The programming blueprints, or source code, for the kernel --the heart of Linux--is included on the DVD, Sony said. But the source code for a proprietary "runtime environment" that lets games play on the system is not.
As for the BIG players, they get involved with all sorts of projects (X11, propriatary CDE...). The license they choose depends on what they are trying to promote (just like people). Also notice a lot of these large companies will also issue a multiple license scheme, since they see the *GPL as a right fit in some cases.
"J.Brown (Ender/Amigo)" ender@enderboi.com wrote:
Okay. Let's look at this.
The main objections seem to be based off two debatible premises: a) LGPL will stop commercial development
Hinder, and this is NOT debatable. Look at the last time this was discussed and Gav's response.
b) FSF
Please, just because you hate the FSF, there is no reason not to accept the license they use. Using the LGPL does not give the FSF -any- control over Wine. Even less if you do not give a "or any later version" clause.
No, but you may not be able to accept the terms of the license (for legal reasons). Read the paragraph of section 6.
Also the fact that LGPL will stop commercial development is a false assumption. WINE is the main application. Wine uses several LGPL libraries. If the main Wine executable is still BSD licensed, you can replace the LGPLed libraries with your commercial version. Etc, etc.
if one wants to go through the headache of maintaining different licenses in the same tree, I suppose this would work. However, if ALL of wine is LGPLed, it is not debatable that no propriatary additions can be made, as the spec compiler will prevent that from happening.
John Carmack made an intresting point, he releases ID softwares older releases under the GPL. Why? Because after originally releasing an engine after a BSD-esque license, a project done some very major work to the engine... and then lost it in a harddrive crash. So his -main- reason for using the GPL is to prevent work done in the community from being lost.
not quite true, as he threatened to sue into oblivion a couple that violated the GPL.
There are of course other points. The LGPL is the GPL without the restrictions which prevent useful commercial use.
LGPL is GPL that grudgingly allows any non-propriatary linkages.
Thus RMS complains it isn't real "open-source"... Neither the LGPL or GPL prevents charging for software,
??? Read 2C of LGPL. You can charge for the disk, but you CANNOT charge for the software.
-r
Some thoughts ...
On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Roger Fujii wrote:
Daniel Sabo sorry@nospam.com wrote:
Neither the BSD or GPL is free, only public domain is free.
The problem with PD software is this screwed up litigious era we live in the US.
Agreed! Thankfully things aren't as bad here in the UK (so far ...)
Which on you use doesn't depend on freedom, it depends on your goal.
true. though the point I was making was BSD *IS* freer than GPL.
You can't (correctly) say that. A more correct statement is "I consider BSD to be freer than GPL", but you can't assert that truth for everyone. There is a fundamental dichotomy between BSD and GPL in what they consider axiomatic: View #1: BSD - here's the source code, do what you want LGPL - here's the source code, do what you want but only if you make the source code available. (which if freer?)
View #2: BSD - Joe Developer can use any copy of the source code, except those juicy bits in propitiatory products. LGPL - Joe Developer can use any copy of the source code. (which is freer?)
You could say: pah! view #1 is rubbish because of X and you might be right; alternatively you could say view #2 is nonsense because of Y and again you could be right. Either way, these are _your_ opinions, they are not universal truths.
So can we quit with the "this license is freer that" statements. Its immaterial as what we're after is the best license for the continued development of wine.
"J.Brown (Ender/Amigo)" ender@enderboi.com wrote:
a) LGPL will stop commercial development
Hinder, and this is NOT debatable. [snip]
Agreed.
Although I'm not convinced that hindering _some_ commercial development necessarily translates into a hindrance of wine. If fact the reverse could turn out to be true.
No, but you may not be able to accept the terms of the [LGPL] license (for legal reasons). Read the paragraph of section 6.
I'm not sure I follow you, could you be more specific? (which paragraph of section 6 and in what way is it not acceptable for legal reasons)
However, if ALL of wine is LGPLed, it is not debatable that no propriatary additions can be made, as the spec compiler will prevent that from happening.
gcc is GPLed (rather than LGPLed). Although it's not stated explicitly anywhere, there is at least one acknowledgement on their web page that you can compile proprietary code with gcc.
How does the spec compiler differ functionally from gcc?
Thus RMS complains it isn't real "open-source"... Neither the LGPL or GPL prevents charging for software,
Whoa! Having met the guy I can tell you RMS would never describe GPL or LGPL as "open source". Whether you make the distinction between "Free" and "Open Source", he certainly does.
I'm also surprised that he would have said that (if you substitute "free" for "open-source"). AFAIK, FSF is trying to put together a complete free (as defined on their webpages) OS. I'd imagine whether or not money is charged is irrelevant, from his point of view. Do you have a reference for that statement?
??? Read 2C of LGPL. You can charge for the disk, but you CANNOT charge for the software.
Forgive the gratuitous cut and paste (from LGPL v2):
- You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion of
it, thus forming a work based on the Library [ ... ] provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
[snip!]
- c) You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
ANAL, but within the context of the whole section I take "the whole of the work" (of section 2.c) to refer to the library plus any modifications to the library you make to it. So under the license, if you create SuperWine (wine + bug fixes) you must release the source for all of SuperWine, not just the original wine sourcecode. IMHO it is badly worded as "the work" has more than one meaning within the license as a whole.
Cheers,
Paul.
-
Paul Millar -
Roger Fujii