"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."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-24
"""
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.
"""
Do you see how your response is completely orthogonal to my statement? I stated that I did not see why people should simply *expect* to be granted rights by the (original) author. Your response has no bearing on that. Of *course* if the author chooses to grant then such rights, they have them. That goes without saying.
My disagreement is with people who seem to believe that the author owes it to them to license their own code not just under a FOSS license, but under a *copyleft* license.
"""
"""
And here we come to what I find to be ugly about the behavior of some FSF advocates. I was respectful when replying to you, even though we might not agree upon certain things. The above quoted line is an example of the lack of respect for others which I see too often in posts by overly-enthusiastic FSF supporters. Note that I am speaking of FSF followers. The FSF itself tends not to be guilty of this. The community could really benefit from Eben Moglen teaching classes on proper advocacy. Perhaps an online tutorial in ogg theora format would be in order.
Member since:2006-01-24
sbergman wrote:
-"My disagreement is with people who seem to believe that the author owes it to them to license their own code not just under a FOSS license, but under a *copyleft* license."
who are these people exactly? and how they are relevant to this discussion. I advocate the sole right of the code author to decide how to licence his code. I may not find their choice preferable, but I have no right to complain.
sbergman wrote:
-"And here we come to what I find to be ugly about the behavior of some FSF advocates. I was respectful when replying to you, even though we might not agree upon certain things. The above quoted line is an example of the lack of respect for others which I see too often in posts by overly-enthusiastic FSF supporters."
'babbling' was merely a substitute for 'talking' which I thought in a better way highlighted what I think was a very illogical and faulty statement. if it came across as disrespectful I beg your forgiveness. my native language is Swedish, and I may not be perfectly clear on what words are more negatively 'charged' than others.
and no, I'm not particularly a FSF advocate. I'm an advocate of the code authors right to licence his code as he sees fit. arguments against this right does often come up in topics regarding GPL and FSF, hence I often end up in such discussions. I do however, prefer the GPL licence, but for purely practical reasons. I don't agree with Stallman that propriety code is unethical (again I advocate the rights of the code authors to decide), but I respect his right to his views.
I also don't agree with BSD advocates claming that GPL programmers are unethical when using BSD code without contributing back since that is actually what the BSD licence permits, but again I respect their right to their views.
I do however not understand how they can claim that it's unethical of GPL projects to use their code and not contribute back due to licence incompability, while not thinking it's unethical when it's being used in closed source projects that does not contribute back. that logic is simply beyond me.
you advocated that permissive licences should add a 'no copyleft' clause to their conditions, again I ask what the logic is behind this proposal you made?
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.