On 8/20/07, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Christopher Murtagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> > Sure, but I don't really see the much of an advantage in our case to
> change
> > licenses (to v3 or LGPL). At the moment, I don't see the current license
> > causing any problems or confusion with anyone. Changing licenses makes
> people
> > leery though. [...]
>
> Part of the reason it makes people leery is that often core developers
> start frothing about "RMS kool-aid" and other irrational reasoning.
One of the problems that projects inherently encounter is that the FSF is a
political organization with political aims. Their licenses support their
political goals at the times that they are approved. Like all political
organizations, there are party-line followers and those who do have possibly
deep disagreemnts with the political means and/or ends of the organization.
In part because things are generally framed in absolutist terms by at least
one side of the organization, this leads to heated political arguments when
ever related topics come up.
At the same time, projects like this are lagely non-political. I say
"largely" because there are still political elements in the desires of the
contributors, the community, etc. even though these may be closely tied
with business and economic goals. My own view is that, whatever
disagreements occur in the community, I don't see anyone yet who I would
suggest is simply a party-line FSF member. Furthermore, I think that the
discussions of "drinking the kool aid" were simply meant by Josh to indicate
that he was not such a person. I have yet to see any of these phrases used
as ad hominems on this list yet and if they were, then I would be more
inclined to agree.
Seeing such things from developers of a finance system doesn't give
> many people warm fuzzies, and least of all, any non-core developers
> who are promoting it "out there".
I hope the above discussion helps put your mind more at ease as well as
everyone else's.
I get spooked by talk of odd
> licences like OSL and wonder whether I'm going to be migrating people
> off of Ledger-SMB almost as soon as they've migrated onto it (because
> I don't remember which of Lawrence Rosen's licences is OSL and whether
> it has problems and I don't want to rereview it unless I must.
There are things I like about the OSL but I this project would move to an
unmodified OSL over my resignation. Same with the AGPL. In both cases, the
licenses require the dissemination of source over the network by anyone who
offers the services of the software to the public. There are a number of
reasons why this would be bad for our project. (The OSL puts use
restrictions on the software while the AGPL forces the project to be more
political.)
In fact, I don't care what the OSI says, I don't consider the OSL to be
either Free or Open Source because it places some restrictions on mere use
of the software. I think we want to stay away from such restrictions. Is
there any reason that anyone can give me to reconsider?
I think that Josh D is demonstrably wrong when he says that the OSL is sort
of like the GPL without the rhetoric. They are, in fact, extremely
different in both intent and implementation and while the OSL solves some
problems with the GPL, it is in many respects a more extreme license.
I want
> to hack, not sift legalities.)
Unfortunately, administration of an open source project doesn't give me
that luxury. In fact, I think that it means that we as a community need to
do what we can to reduce the amount of legal sifting required (the main
reason for my license compatibility post earlier today).
I also think that the community at large deserves full input on licensing
discussions. If you don't want to participate that is your right too, but
you deserve to be given the opportunity to do so.
In addition to that, licensing is deeply unfun and a good thing to do
> OnceAndOnceOnly until there's a compelling reason to change.
We didn't choose the license initially. We forked a GPL v2+ program and
hence have not actually looked at and addressed what the licensing means to
this project. You are right-- we should do this once and once only. And now
is an OK time to actually discuss the matters as a way to shape the way
forward.
I personally hope we can stay with the GPL v2 forever. I just happen to be
pessimistic and think that it may not be practical. See below.
I don't
> think the mere addition of GPLv3 to the licence proliferation is a
> compelling reason. Maybe if something related changes to GPLv3, or
> something that likes v3 but not v2, it will, but let's wait and see.
What I want to avoid is getting trapped into a license change which may not
be in the best interest of the community simply because we are now dependant
on libraries whose licenses change. I think at the same time, we can only
wait and see because nothing we do really avoids the problem. The only
option we might have would be to switch to a license like the BSD license,
and that may not fit with the general spirit of the community (that is a
radical change which would certainly generate hard feelings).
My point is that we are left with no good options. We want this to be
Free/Open Source Software by everyone's standards and the GPL v3 makes that
harder. I am right that Debian considers the GPL v3 to be a license whose
use allows but does not ensure that the software meets the DFSG? Wouldn't
the GPL v3 make our job in complying with these guidelines harder because we
would have to review optional terms of all dependencies under the GPL v3?
Is that a good use of core time? There are thus compelling reasons *not* to
upgrade the license. I just don't want to be forced to do so.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Hope that explains,
> --
> MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
> Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
> Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
> Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Ledger-smb-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-devel
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Ledger-smb-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-devel
