On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 17:50 +0530, jtd wrote: > > > That the only thing that might yet save JAVA is the GPL > > > > save JAVA from what?
you have not answered this point > > > > > > 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 when did I say that - he has the right to close his copy and the right to make it gpl. I also have the right to try and make him see sense and flame him if he doesnt. But I do not have the right to prevent him from doing bad things like this. > > > > > > 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. well, it may come as a surprise to you that there are thousands of BSD licensed projects where people contribute back - sometimes in very large numbers. In fact the normal method of contribution is contribution back. And it is voluntary - I have seen some instances of modifying and distributing a closed source copy - and then contributing back part or whole of the closed portion. > > 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 am a firm believer in persuasion over force > > > > > > 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. suppose I take RT, study the code and implement the whole thing in python/django, is that a copy? or a reimplementation. As far I can see the problem would lie in the database structure - I would have to restructure the database to suit django, but that could be interpreted as a copy? > In the case of GPL software, reimplementing code is very clearly not > copying. so I can go ahead? > > Note: I abhor closed works derived from foss. I could not care less > about an independent closed implementation of any code. I abhor both -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
