On Friday 07 January 2011 12:59:20 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: > 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
>From losing foss developers. > > > > > 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. If it's your code you do have a right and a responsibilty too. It's entirely your chioice. Same with the folks who use the GPL. > > > > > 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 Who is disputing this? > - I have seen some instances > of modifying and distributing a closed source copy - and then > contributing back part or whole of the closed portion. So how is " part" = "whole". And how is "some" = "All" BTW if you ship a closed GPL package, and contribute back to head, alongwith a link to head with the closed, there is no problem at all. The problem is "part" and "some". > > > 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 Fair enough. > > > > > 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. Very very much 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? Even if you exactly replicated the db structure, it would not be a copy. A database structure would be analogous to a filing cabinet. I am am sure nobody could sue me for copying the "method" of organising a filing cabinet or the internal organisation of the contents in a filing cabinet. > > > In the case of GPL software, reimplementing code is very clearly > > not copying. > > so I can go ahead? IMO 100% One assumes that patents is a non issue. http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/openbsd-misc/2007/11/9/399443 > > > 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/ -- Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
