Re: GNU License warning:
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote: Licenses should be more specific in their terminology and their behaviors and effects rather than using arbitrary divisions. If your plugin uses contrived API riddled with all good C(++) misfeatures to customize like 80% of program's functionality - it thus creates a competing proprietary product, which is what GPL tries to prevent. AFAIK it doesn't allow you to use complex API with out of process plugins either. With this division of API GPL tries to control what a plugin can do to the host application, namely it tries to keep degree of integration and complexity of the plugin API low. If you know a better way to do it, you can propose it to FSF, that's also why GPL addresses automatic license upgrade.
Re: GNU License warning:
On Saturday, 14 January 2017 at 01:40:58 UTC, Chris M. wrote: On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 21:53:29 UTC, Ignacious wrote: On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 19:30:40 UTC, Chris Wright wrote: On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:19:57 +, Ignacious wrote: [...] LGPL is much more common, and LGPL isn't a problem when you distribute by source. It *is* a problem with static linking with binary distributions (which is the default for D). This is not a new issue. Software licensing is a well understood, well publicized concern. It doesn't merit alarmism. Sure it does! Stop being a Nazi war criminal wanna be! Do you work for the FOSSF? Otherwise known as the F-OSS-F = Future - Office of Strategic Services - Foundation. What is this thread accomplishing other than ranting about GPL and calling others Nazis? Quite a bit! I has solved the mysteries of the universe and shown that you are a Hitler sympathizer and progressteron.
Re: GNU License warning:
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 21:53:29 UTC, Ignacious wrote: On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 19:30:40 UTC, Chris Wright wrote: On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:19:57 +, Ignacious wrote: [...] LGPL is much more common, and LGPL isn't a problem when you distribute by source. It *is* a problem with static linking with binary distributions (which is the default for D). This is not a new issue. Software licensing is a well understood, well publicized concern. It doesn't merit alarmism. Sure it does! Stop being a Nazi war criminal wanna be! Do you work for the FOSSF? Otherwise known as the F-OSS-F = Future - Office of Strategic Services - Foundation. What is this thread accomplishing other than ranting about GPL and calling others Nazis?
Re: GNU License warning:
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 19:30:40 UTC, Chris Wright wrote: On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:19:57 +, Ignacious wrote: Yes, but D uses mostly bindings and if any of those bindings use it then It effects the D program that uses it. Since many of the bindings are written in C/C++ one can expect that many of them use the GPL license. LGPL is much more common, and LGPL isn't a problem when you distribute by source. It *is* a problem with static linking with binary distributions (which is the default for D). This is not a new issue. Software licensing is a well understood, well publicized concern. It doesn't merit alarmism. Sure it does! Stop being a Nazi war criminal wanna be! Do you work for the FOSSF? Otherwise known as the F-OSS-F = Future - Office of Strategic Services - Foundation.
Re: GNU License warning:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:19:57 +, Ignacious wrote: > Yes, but D uses mostly bindings and if any of those bindings use it then > It effects the D program that uses it. Since many of the bindings are > written in C/C++ one can expect that many of them use the GPL license. LGPL is much more common, and LGPL isn't a problem when you distribute by source. It *is* a problem with static linking with binary distributions (which is the default for D). This is not a new issue. Software licensing is a well understood, well publicized concern. It doesn't merit alarmism.
Re: GNU License warning:
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 15:56:40 UTC, Claude wrote: On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 15:15:14 UTC, Ignacious wrote: On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 12:01:22 UTC, bachmeier wrote: This is not the proper place to blog about software license preferences or to make unsubstantiated accusations against an organization you don't like. There are other sites for that. So, what is up with all the wanna be Nazi's running around today? Did Hitler come out of retirement?? Retirement?? I thought he commited suicide... Of course that is what *they* want you to believe. He was simply biding his time while his little Nazi army infiltrated every aspect of human life. The goal is obfuscation and negativity. They realized they couldn't win on firepower so they moved on to more powerful psychological warfare tactics.
Re: GNU License warning:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:15:14 +, Ignacious wrote: > On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 12:01:22 UTC, bachmeier wrote: >> On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote: >>> [...] >> >> This is not the proper place to blog about software license preferences >> or to make unsubstantiated accusations against an organization you >> don't like. There are other sites for that. > > So, what is up with all the wanna be Nazi's running around today? > Did Hitler come out of retirement?? Nobody's committing genocide here. Nobody is producing murder factories. Nobody's even being authoritarian. One person is saying that they don't think this is a productive place to discuss this issue.
Re: GNU License warning:
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 15:15:14 UTC, Ignacious wrote: On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 12:01:22 UTC, bachmeier wrote: This is not the proper place to blog about software license preferences or to make unsubstantiated accusations against an organization you don't like. There are other sites for that. So, what is up with all the wanna be Nazi's running around today? Did Hitler come out of retirement?? Retirement?? I thought he commited suicide...
Re: GNU License warning:
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 06:37:42 UTC, Joakim wrote: On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote: On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 01:27:02 UTC, Chris Wright wrote: [...] That makes no sense(it's obvious by the definition of derivative so you are not saying anything meaningful/useful). Obviously if you build an independent work you are free to chose a license and no one building any work off of yours or not can cause you problems. [...] I agree with you that the GPL is badly written, but we mostly don't use it, basically only for the gdc compiler itself, so not a big deal here. Yes, but D uses mostly bindings and if any of those bindings use it then It effects the D program that uses it. Since many of the bindings are written in C/C++ one can expect that many of them use the GPL license. The boost license seems acceptable but who knows? Look how many were "swindled" by GPL.
Re: GNU License warning:
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 12:01:22 UTC, bachmeier wrote: On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote: [...] This is not the proper place to blog about software license preferences or to make unsubstantiated accusations against an organization you don't like. There are other sites for that. So, what is up with all the wanna be Nazi's running around today? Did Hitler come out of retirement??
Re: GNU License warning:
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote: You haven't really said anything relevant to the post. The issue is with how the GPL defines proper use of pre-existing works. The ultimately point is that they arbitrarily decide how a work uses another based on "fork and exec" and "library". My point is that those are ultimately artificial because whether we call a function/app through a library or through a command line, they are effectively the same(the difference being performance/convenience, which is the whole point of loading a library vs using the command line). They admit this in the gpl FAQ(if you read it you will see) but the fact that they still create arbitrary division suggests the license is somewhat meaningless/incompetent. Licenses should be more specific in their terminology and their behaviors and effects rather than using arbitrary divisions. Also, while not proof, the fact that the majority of donations to the foundation go to the lawyers(if true) also suggest that it is somewhat of a scam(at the very least, something is fishy). This is not the proper place to blog about software license preferences or to make unsubstantiated accusations against an organization you don't like. There are other sites for that.
Re: GNU License warning:
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote: On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 01:27:02 UTC, Chris Wright wrote: [...] That makes no sense(it's obvious by the definition of derivative so you are not saying anything meaningful/useful). Obviously if you build an independent work you are free to chose a license and no one building any work off of yours or not can cause you problems. [...] I agree with you that the GPL is badly written, but we mostly don't use it, basically only for the gdc compiler itself, so not a big deal here.
Re: GNU License warning:
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 01:27:02 UTC, Chris Wright wrote: You offer an API and someone decides to build on it using the GPL -- no trouble there; your work is not a derivative of theirs, so their copyright cannot place restrictions on your work. That makes no sense(it's obvious by the definition of derivative so you are not saying anything meaningful/useful). Obviously if you build an independent work you are free to chose a license and no one building any work off of yours or not can cause you problems. You build against an open standard and the only implementation is GPL -- your work is a derivative of the standard, not necessarily the GPL'd work. That depends. The standard could be GPL's too. Anything can be copyrighted and licensed how the creator wants as long as it is legal. In any case, that says nothing about a single work. You build against an open standard with an MIT licensed implementation and someone else builds a GPL implementation -- no trouble there; your work is not a derivative of theirs, so their copyright cannot place restrictions on your work. You haven't really said anything relevant to the post. The issue is with how the GPL defines proper use of pre-existing works. The ultimately point is that they arbitrarily decide how a work uses another based on "fork and exec" and "library". My point is that those are ultimately artificial because whether we call a function/app through a library or through a command line, they are effectively the same(the difference being performance/convenience, which is the whole point of loading a library vs using the command line). They admit this in the gpl FAQ(if you read it you will see) but the fact that they still create arbitrary division suggests the license is somewhat meaningless/incompetent. Licenses should be more specific in their terminology and their behaviors and effects rather than using arbitrary divisions. Also, while not proof, the fact that the majority of donations to the foundation go to the lawyers(if true) also suggest that it is somewhat of a scam(at the very least, something is fishy).
Re: GNU License warning:
You offer an API and someone decides to build on it using the GPL -- no trouble there; your work is not a derivative of theirs, so their copyright cannot place restrictions on your work. You build against an open standard and the only implementation is GPL -- your work is a derivative of the standard, not necessarily the GPL'd work. You build against an open standard with an MIT licensed implementation and someone else builds a GPL implementation -- no trouble there; your work is not a derivative of theirs, so their copyright cannot place restrictions on your work.
Re: GNU License warning:
On Thursday, 12 January 2017 at 17:35:23 UTC, Ignacious wrote: I think a license should exist that EXPLICITLY states what one can do with the source code and binary and what they are. I'm not sure about what your point is with this. The GPL is pretty explicit about what you can do with the code. No software license cannot define "derivative work". That is a question of law.
GNU License warning:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=Please%20Stop%20Using%20GNU%20Licenses
http://gng.z505.com/cult.htm
And, I should point out:
"If I write a plug-in to use with a GPL-covered program, what
requirements does that impose on the licenses I can use for
distributing my plug-in? (#GPLAndPlugins)
It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the
program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins
are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes
no requirements for them.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make
function calls to each other and share data structures, we
believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an
extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means
you must license the plug-in under the GPL or a GPL-compatible
free software license and distribute it with source code in a
GPL-compliant way.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the
communication between them is limited to invoking the ‘main’
function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to
return, that is a borderline case.
Can I apply the GPL when writing a plug-in for a non-free
program? (#GPLPluginsInNF)
If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then
the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main
program makes no requirements for them. So you can use the GPL
for a plug-in, and there are no special requirements.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make
function calls to each other and share data structures, we
believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an
extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means
that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with the non-free
main program would violate the GPL. However, you can resolve that
legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license,
giving permission to link it with the non-free main program.
See also the question I am writing free software that uses a
non-free library.
Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a
GPL-covered plug-in? (#NFUseGPLPlugins)
It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. For
instance, if the program uses only simple fork and exec to invoke
and communicate with plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate
programs, so the license of the plug-in makes no requirements
about the main program.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make
function calls to each other and share data structures, we
believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an
extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. In order to
use the GPL-covered plug-ins, the main program must be released
under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that
the terms of the GPL must be followed when the main program is
distributed for use with these plug-ins.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the
communication between them is limited to invoking the ‘main’
function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to
return, that is a borderline case.
Using shared memory to communicate with complex data
structures is pretty much equivalent to dynamic linking.
See also the question I am writing free software that uses a
non-free library."
Essentially they draw an imaginary line between using "fork and
exec" vs linking.
"If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make
function calls to each other and share data structures, we
believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an
extension of both the main program and the plug-ins"
And so we are in the realm of belief.
As we all know here that every computer program ran on a computer
is connected by nested "data structures"... so fork and exec are
just dereferencing linking
by an extra step.
What happens, when in the future, OS's use some other mechanism
for execution? Is there really any difference between
exec("app.exe") and LoadLibrary("app.dll")? (I don't mean an
imginary difference created in the mind by obfuscated data
structures. I'm talking about a fundamental difference(besides
performance))
There is a lot of arbitrary language in the GNU license and the
fact that it was created by lawyers for lawyers(see
http://gng.z505.com/cult.htm. I realize the link looks a bit
crackpotish but it has a lot of relevant points and if the
numbers are right, shows more than enough proof).
As usual, it comes down to who has the biggest bank roll and
smartest lawyers to obfuscate the issues. The push for free
software is becoming a nonsensical pursuit like most other human
behaviors.
I think a license should exist that EXPLICITLY states what one
can do with the source code and binary and what they are.
