On Thursday 06 January 2011 16:10:35 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: > On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 14:49 +0530, jtd wrote: > > How does the conditions on which an open licence is based change > > with a country? > > I have not really gone into this. I did note that CC tries to give > country specific licenses. One possible use case would be a country > that prohibits export of a particular category of software beyond > it's borders (and makes it a criminal offence). One would need a > few extra clauses in the license to deal with this. > > <snip>
Ok > > I cannot really answer the stuff below because I do not understand > it. > > Can you clarify: > > One might note that, > > much of M$ problem creation capabilities arose from the freedom > > granted by BSD (or similiar licenced) code. > > what do you mean by 'problem creation capabilities'? Mangling of protocols merely to prevent others from interworking - kerberos and pptp or rather M$ version. http://www.schneier.com/pptp-faq.html > > > Most of the embedded device makers were (and are) making merry > > with gpl (and bsd) code. Several have been brought to book > > because of the gpl. > > most of them have not been caught yet! and I do not understand what > this has to do with the points that I am raising. While the gpl provides one with a legal means of enforcing compliance, a mangled BSD stack provides no such protection as they dont care. Unfortunately it's the end user who suffers. > > > That the only thing that might yet save JAVA is the GPL > > save JAVA from what? > > > One might note that with the sale of Novell's patents, GPLV3 like > > terms seems to be the only option for all other non BSDish open > > licences. > > what does this mean? GPLV3 requires assignment of patent rights automatically to all downstream distributors. > > > Much of your arguments (except one) is about (1) expecting others > > to behave > > huh? who am I expecting to behave? and behave how? 1) the guy who takes bsd code into gpl and 2) the guy who takes his contribution private (pseudo gplsts) In both cases you want him to behave in a way that the licence does not require. If you intend to prevent 1 you will have to add a derivative clause that requires release of derivative works under BSD licence. So now you will be rewarding bad behaviour. If someone takes the code closed it's ok, but if he takes it gpl you wont allow > > > and (2) the assumption that an improvment is not desired by > > the original developer. > > where did I make that assumption - I am on record saying that a > major motivation for open sourcing code is the hope that people > will step in improve the software. How does the software improve without contributing back?. If a recipient takes his contibution private, inspite of deriving his work from foss he is without a shadow of doubt nullifying the major reason. Which partly is what the gpl prevents. With BSD you are, by not specifically asking for contribution thru clauses in the licence, telling the downstream guy I dont care. With gpl you are saying I care, so dont touch the damned thing if you dont want to contribute your code. > > > I fail to see how (1) holds in the light of the above list. > > The whole point of opening your code is the desire for > > improvment, so proposing (2) as an argument against gpl seems > > rather strange. > > I haven't proposed this > > > The exception is BSD not benefiting from literal copying of gpl > > code. Note that reading and reimplementing gpl code is a viable > > alternative, > > are we allowed to do that? I wanted to port RT to python/django, > but I saw GPL and was discouraged. If you can certify that I can do > this and license it under BSD I will be forever grateful to you You can read and reimplement it in a different way. You are not copying (or transcribing), which is what copyright is about. There have been innumerable cases on stories, poems and particularly music, which were litigated alleging copying. Most of them were thrown out, even though they sound substantially similiar. The famed Music director Naushad lost (afaik) a case on remixes of his music. In essence copyright does not preclude plagiarism of ideas, as intended by law. In the case of GPL software, reimplementing code is very clearly not copying. > > > particularly because much of gpl code is incremental > > improvements, especially if it is derived from BSD, or when bsd > > code is folded into gpl. > > I have news for you - most open source code is incremental > improvements - the methodology that is proven to be successful. > This is methodology and has nothing to do with license. > > > I am quite sure that most foss developers are not anti BSD > > either, > > cool - are you among their number? Absolutely. If someone realises his code as BSD, he knows (or should know) what he is doing. However when it comes to advocacy or release of publicly funded code, I am absolutely clear that the code must be released under the GPL. > > > except for the major irritant of having to reverse engineer > > closed derivative works. > > be clear on one thing - I personally feel that writing closed > source code is immoral and evil, I campaign against it - but > unfortunately closed source software has not yet been added in the > schedule prohibited substances in relevant anti trafficking laws. Note: I abhor closed works derived from foss. I could not care less about an independent closed implementation of any code. > -- > regards > KG > http://lawgon.livejournal.com > Coimbatore LUG rox > http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/ -- Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
