Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 29th Sep 2007 21:24 UTC, submitted by Kishe
GNU, GPL, Open Source "A research firm serving the mobile phone industry has published an 18-page whitepaper about open source licensing. Entitled 'GPLv2 vs. GPLv3', the paper examines the meteoric rise of open source software, and the forces that shaped each license, before concluding with an extremely detailed point-by-point comparison."
Thread beginning with comment 275748
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE BSD license.
by Valhalla on Tue 2nd Oct 2007 19:21 UTC in reply to "RE BSD license."
Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24

the problem with permissive licences not being able to incorporate GPL licenced code is due to the basic rights that define the whole copyleft licence, which is to give rights to the recipient, for example the right to recieve the sourcecode.

since permissive licences does not require these rights to be given to the recipient, they cannot adopt GPL licenced code.

so please sbergman, explain to me how you can be favourable to copyleft and yet complain about the licence incompability that prevents permissive licences to use GPL licenced code? it is a direct consequence of the rights that GPL gives recipients, which in turn is what GPL was created for.

so sbergman, how would you solve this?

sbergman27 wrote:
"I really wish that some of the permissively licensed projects would temporarily add a "no copyleft" clause to their licenses just to make the point."

and what point would that be? that we are NOT permissively licenced? that it is ok to use our code in closed source projects but not in open source projects that use GPL? I fail to see the logic other than to punish GPL as a competitor in the open source licence space.


I personally think that GPL-style licences are better suited for applications and that system oriented code such as drivers etc are better when permissively licenced so as to easily be incorporated into all open source kernels with a minimum of fuss, but that is my personal preference, and it is still at the discretion of the code author. whatever licence he/she chooses is up to them and I don't see no reason why I should second guess their reasoning. but you on the other hand, try to blame FSF for what is ultimately the choice of said code author, again your anti-FSF fervor shines through.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE BSD license.
by sbergman27 on Tue 2nd Oct 2007 20:23 in reply to "RE BSD license."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

I personally think that GPL-style licences are better suited for applications and that system oriented code such as drivers etc are better when permissively licenced so as to easily be incorporated into all open source kernels with a minimum of fuss, but that is my personal preference, and it is still at the discretion of the code author.

"""

That's pretty reasonable. I probably agree. I *definitely* agree that it is the satisfaction of the authors of code that is of utmost importance. To that end, I perceive that some authors who have used a permissive license have overestimated the good will of of some copylefted projects and would now like to see a bit more reciprocation. I don't blame them. Copyleft is not the divinely revealed plan of God, after all; There are different kinds of freedom. And different views on if and where barriers should be placed that limit the sharing of code within the FOSS community. And I've always suspected that most of the people who hang out in forums and are adamant about users' rights have never written a line of FOSS licensed code in their lives, either permissively or copyleft licensed.

Personally, I've never understood why the users of code should expect that they should be guaranteed certain rights on the fruits of other people's hard work simply because they are warm and breathing. It's just been asserted so many times now that it is accepted, by some, less critically than it should be.

You are making the mistake that some others here make in assuming that if I don't adhere to the FSF party line I am anti-FOSS and/or anti-FSF. I'm neither. Until you see that, it is unlikely that we are going to avoid misunderstandings.

If authors of permissive software *did* decide to restrict their code a bit more, denying GPL projects access to it, I would understand, and even support such a move by them. Because, after all, it *is* their hard work they are licensing.

I appreciate when they *do* guarantee me rights. But I don't hold them to it as a responsibility.

I *prefer* copylefted code. I greatly appreciate both the copylefted and permissively licensed code to which I have been granted access.

Unfortunately, some seem to feel that being given code is not enough. Before they are satisfied, the author must guarantee to them that anything anyone else does with the code should be granted to them, too. I find that attitude to be both ungrateful and distasteful in character.

One should be appreciative when granted rights to the fruits of someone else's hard labors. They shouldn't just use it as a springboard for demanding more.

Copyleft is often beneficial. But it is *not* a mandate. For some reason, that idea seems to upset some people.

Edited 2007-10-02 20:40

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE BSD license.
by Valhalla on Tue 2nd Oct 2007 21:12 in reply to "RE BSD license."
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

sbergman wrote:
-"Personally, I've never understood why the users of code should expect that they should be guaranteed certain rights on the fruits of other people's hard work simply because they are warm and breathing. It's just been asserted so many times now that it is accepted, by some, less critically than it should be."

no, they are not guaranteed certain rights because they are warm and breathing, they are guaranteed certain rights because the author of the code chose to licence his code under a licence that guaranteed the users certain rights.

sbergman wrote:
-"If authors of permissive software *did* decide to restrict their code a bit more, denying GPL projects access to it, I would understand, and even support such a move by them. Because, after all, it *is* their hard work they are licensing."

and I would not have any problem with them doing so either, since yes it is their code that they are licencing. I am however questioning the logic behind such a move, since they are a permissive licence. other than being subjectively punative, I can see no reason for not allowing GPL projects to use their code while allowing it to be used within closed source projects. You on the other hand, advocated such a move. again, by what logic I ask?

GPL's copyleft mechanism which prevents it's code to be used within permissively licenced projects was not there in order to punish permissively licenced projects, but to ensure rights to the recipient of GPL licenced code. it is these rights (which the author of the code obviously wants to pass on since he chose to licence his code under GPL) that prevents GPL code to be used within permissively licenced projects.

sbergman wrote:
-"Unfortunately, some seem to feel that being given code is not enough. Before they are satisfied, the author must guarantee to them that anything anyone else does with the code should be granted to them, too. I find that attitude to be both ungrateful and distasteful in character. "

what are you babbling about? it is the authors of the code that defines what guarantees the recipients shall recieve. they do this when they licence their code. it is the authors who 'feel' that 'anything anyone else does with the code should be granted to them, too', else they would choose a licence that did not make such requirements.

Reply Parent Score: 2