Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Kyle Wheeler wrote: On Monday, August 8 at 08:04 PM, quoth Bob Van Zant: There's no question that the GPL is more restrictive than, say, the BSD (or Apache or Artistic) license. The real question to answer is: what does the BincIMAP project gain from that license? Does it have more to gain by changing the license? Maybe Andreas should ask the people who contributed to Binc most so far? r. -- GPL-guy: Aargh, they used my code! :-/ BSD-guy: Cool, they used my code! :-)
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:21:15PM +0200, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote: My point, for Binc IMAP, is that the GPL does not allow companies to write backends for the server and distribute that backend (or the whole modified product) in binary form, and that's regardless of how well defined our API is. And I'd like for them to be able to do that. OpenSC (OpenSSL, Linux, ...) solves this with dynamic libraries that export a predefined set of functions. That way Binc is distributed as-is, without modifications. And a .so library can still be loaded to get added functionality. PS: This is why GTK and KDElibs are LGPL, and why Qt is GPL with an exception that allows linking against other libraries. Believe me, if these libs could have been pure-GPL licensed then they probably would have been. One big difference between all of those libraries and Binc is that the libs are just that, libraries, and Binc is a complete product. Technically that doesn't stop Binc from being LGPL:ed, but I think it feels a little backwards.. //Peter
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
On 2005-08-08, at 0229, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote: Specifically, what behavior does the GPL prohibit that you (or anyone else) feels should not be prohibited? Adding a mailbox format, adding a depot format, adding in-house extensions, authentication modules, and so on. the GPL doesn't prohibit any of this. it prohibits writing these things and trying to DISTRIBUTE the changes, without those changes being licensed under the GPL as well. As long as it's GPL (and once GPL, always GPL), any intern who can get a hold of the software can distribute it. no. what the GPL says is that if a company wants to take a piece of GPL code, modify it, and NOT distribute it, that's fine- the modified code can be kept within the company and used for internal purposes. however, if they DISTRIBUTE the code- which means in any format, source, binary, embedded into a chip, whatever- then their modifications must be offered under the GPL as well. if an intern (or contractor) is working on a project for that company, then he is considered part of the company, and is able to use the modified code for projects within the company, but he is not allowed to use it for anything outside the company, and he is not allowed to keep a copy of the modified code for himself, unless the company agrees to release the changes under the GPL (because both of these activities constitute distribution, unless the company has told him not to, in which case it becomes theft.) i know, i've been that contractor, and one of my clients was that company. i added some custom features to a GPL program for them, and they elected to keep my changes in-house rather than allow them to be distributed- which means that i don't even have a backup copy of the modified code. if the company takes GPL code, changes it, and chooses not to release it, that's fine- the GPL allows that. but if they distribute the modified code at all, those modifications must be distributed under the same GPL license under which they obtained the original code. And that's food for lawyers of course, but it's scary enough to shake away many businessmen. what i've seen is that the part which scares away a lot of businesses is that if they use GPL code as part of something, they won't be able to sell the finished product under the traditional proprietary no source code terms that they've been using for years. the entire software industry seems to have this mentality of locking up the code, because anybody who gets the source code can build the software and not have to pay for it. the GPL means that they have to make a profit through some other means- usually through value-added support. redhat is making a killing by operating this way, but companies like microsoft avoid this. i see two reasons: (1) under their current proprietary model they're making money on the software AND on the support, and (2) the only way to guarantee a profit is to guarantee that people will need support, which kinda goes against the idea of writing quality software in the first place. i don't think microsoft actually cares about licensing- if they could find a way to squeeze as much profit out of GPL software as they do from their proprietary software, i think they would release all of their own products under the GPL just for the benefit of having millions of unpaid people around the world improving their code for them. microsoft's number one concern is that of any publicly held company- making a profit. as for binc... i'm not sure i'm really qualified to have my opinion mean anything, seeing as how i don't use binc on any live servers (yet) but if anybody cares i'm in favour of leaving it under the GPL. -- | John M. Simpson - KG4ZOW - Programmer At Large | | http://www.jms1.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- | Mac OS X proves that it's easier to make UNIX | | pretty than it is to make Windows secure. | -- PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
I quickly see this turning into the same license debate we've seen 100 times. Andreas was asking for a license that makes the business world feel good about modifying the source. GPL does not make me feel good. Something like FreeBSD where I can give back the changes that I want to (think what Apple has done for various open source projects) makes me feel good and is probably a fair compromise. I bet the people that don't give back changes they make to software licensed under FreeBSD are the same people that don't give back their changes to GPL software (despite the unlawfulness). -Bob
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 03:57:27PM -0700, Bob Van Zant wrote: I quickly see this turning into the same license debate we've seen 100 times. Andreas was asking for a license that makes the business world feel good about modifying the source. GPL does not make me feel good. That's unfortunate. :\ Something like FreeBSD where I can give back the changes that I want to (think what Apple has done for various open source projects) makes me feel good and is probably a fair compromise. That's no compromise for the user, only the developer, in that ACME can build a whizbang out of the developer's work and make megabucks without contributing anything back. I bet the people that don't give back changes they make to software licensed under FreeBSD are the same people that don't give back their changes to GPL software (despite the unlawfulness). Pretty cynical. :) In my world the people that don't want to give back changes made to BSD licensed software won't use GPLed software as building blocks in the first place, since doing so would be unlawful. //Peter
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
Something like FreeBSD where I can give back the changes that I want to (think what Apple has done for various open source projects) makes me feel good and is probably a fair compromise. That's no compromise for the user, only the developer, in that ACME can build a whizbang out of the developer's work and make megabucks without contributing anything back. Remember that it takes money to make money. As you well know, ACME can't just take the software and sell it as-is. I think this is capitalism at its finest (debate capitalism somewhere else). ACME takes the open source software and invests a relatively large amount of money into resources to transform it into a fine piece of commercialized software (tech support, packaging, etc) and sells it for mega bucks. However, there was risk involved in the investment (what if the product never sells?). With risk comes reward. If the original developer of this mythical open source project had the energy to pursue this risk then the rewards could have been his (or the losses). Often times companies utilizing open source in key portions of their business will hire on the lead developer(s) of a project to help them build it. In some sense this is giving back in multiple forms. First it is giving the lead developer his dream: getting paid to work on the one thing he loves the most. Second, with the lead developer at the helm it is likely that many of the changes the company makes will end up back in the community. It appears that I'm definitely in the minority here. I guess I have a bit more faith in big business than some of the other people around here do. Which is funny because I figure companies break the GPL all the time whereas you think they just use more open licenses :-) -Bob
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
On Monday, August 8 at 05:34 PM, quoth Bob Van Zant: Something like FreeBSD where I can give back the changes that I want to (think what Apple has done for various open source projects) makes me feel good and is probably a fair compromise. That's no compromise for the user, only the developer, in that ACME can build a whizbang out of the developer's work and make megabucks without contributing anything back. Remember that it takes money to make money. As you well know, ACME can't just take the software and sell it as-is. True, but without the open-source software, ACME gets to write it's own IMAP server and spend even more money. The thing to remember here is that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Using an established widget as a base for the whizbang, ACME saves lots of development money. The other way to do that is to buy the rights (or a license) to a commercial established widget. This means more money! Open-source, rather than requiring monetary payment for the widget, has use requirements. If you can't stand the use requirements, buy a widget. THIS is capitalism. Often times companies utilizing open source in key portions of their business will hire on the lead developer(s) of a project to help them build it. In some sense this is giving back in multiple forms. First it is giving the lead developer his dream: getting paid to work on the one thing he loves the most. Second, with the lead developer at the helm it is likely that many of the changes the company makes will end up back in the community. And you feel this is less likely to happen with GPL'd software than with BSD'd software? What (evidence?) makes you think this is the trend? It appears that I'm definitely in the minority here. I guess I have a bit more faith in big business than some of the other people around here do. Which is funny because I figure companies break the GPL all the time whereas you think they just use more open licenses :-) That's not capitalism, that's theft. Just as much as getting a copy of a commercial widget's source code without paying for it would be theft. I'm curious - what makes you think that a company that is willing to commit a crime to get ahead financially is going to be more interested in using (or contributing openly to) a BSD-style licensed widget than a GPL'd widget? ~Kyle -- A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants. -- Chuckles the Clown pgpFCxg2i1nOK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
On Friday, August 5 at 02:11 PM, quoth Bob Van Zant: I certainly like the FreeBSD license. Can't get much more open than that. No one is forced to give back their modifications under any circumstances which makes a whole lot of sense. Makes a whole lot of sense in what respect? The company I work for takes advantage of a lot of open source software and although it doesn't make any business sense to give back all of our changes to the open source world we do give back a lot of bug fixes and minor enhancements. That's cool. Out of curiosity, what sorts of projects has your company contributed to? We won't even look at GPL software. Because you fear it, or...? I'm trying to understand the logic (or maybe just the mentality). ~Kyle -- There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. -- Unknown pgpgD8dZHEle8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Bob Van Zant wrote: I certainly like the FreeBSD license. Can't get much more open than that. No one is forced to give back their modifications under any circumstances which makes a whole lot of sense. The company I work for takes advantage of a lot of open source software and although it doesn't make any business sense to give back all of our changes to the open source world we do give back a lot of bug fixes and minor enhancements. We won't even look at GPL software. Do you distribute modified open source software? Andy :-) -- Andreas Aardal Hanssen | http://www.andreas.hanssen.name/gpg Author of Binc IMAP | It is better not to do something http://www.bincimap.org/ |than to do it poorly.
Re: [binc] What license should we use for Binc IMAP in the future?
I certainly like the FreeBSD license. Can't get much more open than that. No one is forced to give back their modifications under any circumstances which makes a whole lot of sense. The company I work for takes advantage of a lot of open source software and although it doesn't make any business sense to give back all of our changes to the open source world we do give back a lot of bug fixes and minor enhancements. We won't even look at GPL software. -Bob On 8/5/05 1:22 PM, Andreas Aardal Hanssen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, all. Binc IMAP 1.2 is, as we all know, licensed under the GPLv2. In short, the GPL means that the source is open, but anyone can change it and keep their changes to themselves as long as they don't distribute Binc IMAP in binary form; if they do distribute it, then anyone who can get hold of that binary can claim the modified source. The goal of this license is to encourage everyone to open their modified source to everyone. I'm looking for an appropriate license for Binc IMAP in the future. If anyone has any suggestions, feel free to speak up. What's important for Binc IMAP is: 1) It's open source, for all that means. 2) I want to encourage everyone to send their patches back to the community, so that others in the same position as you can make use of your adaptations. 3) I want the business world to feel good about using and modifying Binc IMAP. 4) I don't want the existing Binc IMAP community (yeah, you!) to feel that any new license is of hindrance for them to make use of Binc IMAP 1.4. GPL is a little strict on adding stuff (backends, extensions). Maybe LGPL is an alternative? Andy :-) PS: The license for Binc IMAP 1.2 will not change. -- Andreas Aardal Hanssen | http://www.andreas.hanssen.name/gpg Author of Binc IMAP | It is better not to do something http://www.bincimap.org/ |than to do it poorly.
