On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 06:33:38PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On 6/5/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No disagreement here (except the implication that non-free use is the > > only goal--the goal is free use everywhere, and non-free use is just > > part of "everywhere"). Permissive licenses are close to public domain, > > and reasons for using the two are similar. > > Change "everywhere" to "allowed for every person, regardless of > the restrictions they then impose" and I'll agree with you. > > "Everywhere" is rather silly -- there are many galaxies which will > never be graced with the presence of software package $FOO..
I'm missing the point of the word-nitpick. Permissive licenses try to minimize the obstacles they present to reusing code. > That said, both copyleft and public domain allow distribution to > any person. The distinction is the kind of restrictions which are > allowed in the context of that distribution. Public Domain allows > the receiver to impose arbitrary restrictions. Copyleft restricts > the receiver from imposing arbitrary restrictions. By imposing restrictions itself, which make the code impossible to use in many projects, ranging from simple GPL-incompatible projects to outright proprietary ones. (Hmm. That sounds a little inflammatory, but isn't intended to be; it's intended only as a statement of fact, acknowledging the trade the GPL makes.) > > The GPL very deliberately makes a trade: in exchange for less free > > use (eg. more restrictions), it tries to encourage "giving code back > > to the commons" and all that. GPL-licensed code is not usable, for > > example, in proprietary software; or even in mostly-free programs > > that simply have a few GPL-incompatible plugins for interoperability > > (eg. OpenSSL). > It also assumes that the authors of the GPLed content were > unaware that those restrictions would be imposed on their > software and that they object. Er, so you're saying GPL-licensed code is usable in GPL-incompatible programs, as long as you think the authors won't object? I'm pretty sure you don't think that, so I assume I'm misunderstanding something. > > That's not a bug, of course; it's explicitly intended to discourage > > proprietary development, and many people who use the GPL actively wish > > to do so, and don't consider that restriction a problem. That's fine. > > But people who don't wish to do so--who, in contrast, don't consider > > proprietary use of code a problem, and wish to minimize political, > > practical and legal barriers to reuse--often prefer permissive licenses. > > If that's your philosophy, then you may well not want to force people > > to include your 20-line license, either, since that can introduce > > practical problems. (I'm not sure why this seems to be a controversial > > statement; it seems self-evident to me.) > > The situation here is that even though the legal properties of public > domain works seem self evident, in the general case they are not. I'm a little confused. The subthread was about the costs, benefits and rationale of including a clause that says "this license must be preserved on all copies", which shows up in the *-BSD and X11 licenses. Not that I mind tangenting to other relevant topics, I'm just not sure how we got there. :) > For example, there are cases where an author who has released > a work into the public domain may not be allowed to have a copy > of that work. Do you mean that it's possible that an author might claim to release a work into the public domain, but not actually have the right to do so (eg. contractually)? That's true, but is true of all licenses ... -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
