Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Steve Litt (sl...@troubleshooters.com):

> I would *never* consider GPLvAnything+, because I would never agree to
> anything I haven't yet seen. I have no way of knowing who will be in
> charge of the FSF in ten or twenty years, or from whom they will be
> taking money.

But you _do_ know that they're constrained by their corporate bylaws and
by tax law to adhere to their declared charitable purpose.  I'd say, of
all the inconstancy in the world to worry about, that of FSF would
logically rank among the lowest.

Worrying about risks from 'or any later version' in this area is, IMO,
worrying about something so far-fetched as to be pretty funny.  OTOH, 
history shows that there are advantages to including that language, as
FSF has used that language to help fix problems as they arise.  Example:  
2008, when they helped Wikimedia Foundation move to CC-BY-SA 3.0 by
issuing carefully crafted GFDL 1.3 text to assist. 
https://lwn.net/Articles/305892/
https://lwn.net/Articles/305898
https://lwn.net/Articles/334274/
http://www.fsf.org/news/fdl-1.3-pr.html

If Wikimedia Foundation hadn't used the 'or any later version' clause,
that would not have been possible.

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Steve Litt (sl...@troubleshooters.com):

> All of you have also crystalized one of the factors that have pushed me
> away from GPL: The requirements of displaying it.

Which as licensor you are free to waive.  Note footer at the bottom of 
http://linuxmafia.com/ssh/ as an example:

  Copyright (C) 2000-2009, Rick Moen, r...@linuxmafia.com.

  This information is free; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under
  the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
  Software Foundation, version 2. (Licensor waives GNU General Public
  License's requirement to include a copy of the licence text in
  redistributions or derivatives of this work.)

  [...]
  Additionally, copyright owner waives GPLv2's obligation to include a
  copy of the licence text if redistributing the covered work or
  derivatives thereof.
  [...]

Waivers are often useful to dispose of licensing problems.

For example, when I was working at VA Linux Systems, my friend and
co-worker Marc Merlin released for usage there and elsewhere a set of
patches for the Exim MTA to retrofit TLS capabilities (so it could do
SMTPS and all that).  It did this through close integration with
OpenSSL.  

I brought up on the internal mailing lists a possible problem:  OpenSSL 
includes both newer code under 3-clause BSD and older code under
4-clause BSD written by original Australian coder Eric A. Young back
when the project was called SSLEay. 

The fourth clause in question was the 'noxious advertising clause' that
famously induces GPL-incompatibility in derivative works.  _If_ Marc's
work created a derivative of Phil Hazel's Exim MTA with Young's code,
then Hazel might well object and seek to enjoin the work.  (This was 
back around 2000, before I learned that some FSF claims must be taken
with a grain of salt, and I believe I outright asserted to Marc that he
was inadvertently infringing Hazel's copyright, which isn't actually
clear.)

Marc got angry at _me_, to which I said 'Hey, don't kill the messenger', 
and suggested merely asking Hazel if he'd grant a licence exception
prospectively permitting Exim's use with OpenSSL.  Marc allowed that
this is a good idea, and he says Hazel was fine with this and
immediately added it to Exim.  (On a quick look, I haven't found this,
but am not going to spend more time searching.)

> What methods have you guys used in order to display your GPLv* licenses
> in software with a user interface, as required?

Waive that requirement.  You're the copyright owner; you get to make the
rules.

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Simon Hobson (li...@thehobsons.co.uk):

> However, without a lot of work, doesn't the ability to link mean
> pulling in some sort of interface file and "building in" that file to
> your code ?

Much depends on the particulars of a specific case, but in general the
code elements used for that purpose would tend to be adjudicated to be
'functional elements', which are not eligible for copyright coverage, as
opposed ot 'expressive elements', which are.

I don't have UK caselaw linked from my knowledgebase page posted
upthread, but do have links to the leading USA cases, which you might
find of interest.  (Jurisprudence on this matter of course differs
between countries, but tends to be generally similar on account of
treaties.)

> And I suppose that then brings up ... to what extent does reading the
> interface description and then typing it out (rather than just "cp"ing
> the file) constitute copying ?

See above about the distinction between expressive and functional
elements.  That distinction is one of the main ways the law enforces the 
'idea/expression dichotomy':  The overarching rule is that useful ideas
should be eligible for patent coverage if at all, but not copyright, and
creative expressions should be eligible for copyright coverage if at
all, and not patents.

-- 
Cheers,   "I know there is a joke to be made with the word
Rick Moen  asymptote, but I just can't seem to reach it."
r...@linuxmafia.com   -- @j_c_fitz
McQ! (4x80)
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Adam Borowski (kilob...@angband.pl):

> There's none, either way.

Exactly.  On the other hand, there's a _great_ deal of caselaw about
what does and does not constitute a derivative work.  The criteria are
quite clear (even if not mechanistic), having to do with the reuse of
copyright-encumbered creative elements in a new work.  Smart money
suggests that judges would continues to use those criteria, which have
nothing whatsoever to do with linking.  Thus, the assertion in the FSF
FAQ, continually repeated in various Linux forums, has no foundation in
copyright law.  Which is what I said.

> What matters for now is the point of view of ftpmasters of Debian, Fedora,
> Gentoo and what not, who either believe the FSF or prefer to stay safe.

Actually, I believe the question was whether the upthread assertion
about linking and copyright law is legally sound.  It isn't --
irrespective of what any distribution's policy requires.  So saying is
not 'pretty fringe'.  It's what people who actually know something about
copyright law have been telling in response to FSF's wishful thinking,
for years.

And that was the entirety of what I said.  Changing the subject is a
fine hobby, and I wish you luck with that, however.

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[Steve Litt]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 17:14:45 +0100
KatolaZ  wrote:

> Yes, but with non-copyleft permissive licences nothing stops anybody
> (either a contributor or a user or a company) from taking your work,
> closing it, and redistributing it as proprietary software...

Until very recently, I didn't care if my work were used inside a
proprietary program. My main concern was that others could use, modify
and redistribute what I'd made. In the period 1999-2014, I had been
drifting steadily away from GPL/copyleft and more toward
Expat/permissive.

Then the systemd thing happened, and I stopped to think what Redhat
would have done had the Linux kernel been licensed Expat. That started
me once again strongly considering copyleft.
 
SteveT

Steve Litt
August 2016 featured book: Manager's Guide to Technical Troubleshooting
  Brand new, second edition
http://www.troubleshooters.com/mgr
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[Nate Bargmann]

* On 2016 24 Aug 10:53 -0500, Steve Litt wrote:

> Yes. I'm now considering GPLv3-only.
> 
> I would *never* consider GPLvAnything+, because I would never agree to
> anything I haven't yet seen. I have no way of knowing who will be in
> charge of the FSF in ten or twenty years, or from whom they will be
> taking money.
> 
> Once upon a time, Redhat was a best of breed Free Software citizen.
> Once upon a time, Debian was more trusted than Walter Cronkite. Things
> change.

That is a good point.

Just to be clear, my understanding is that the "or later" clause does
not bind you, the original author to the any later version.  The clause
only applies to licensees of your package.

- Nate

-- 

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[KatolaZ]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:47:02AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:

[cut]

> 
> Hi KatolaZ,
> 
> Thank you, and thank Peter Olson, for your inciteful and incisive
> pointing out of facts. I'm now adding GPL3 to the list. And one thing
> I've always yearned for about GPLv3 is the anti patent provisions.
> Software patents are the spawn of satan, and the entire patent system
> is completely out of control (one click ordering my aunt's hat).
> 
> All of you have also crystalized one of the factors that have pushed me
> away from GPL: The requirements of displaying it. The first UMENU was
> in Perl, and it displayed the entire GPLv2 when it terminated. That's
> kind of ugly. It would be *really* ugly with the much longer GPLv3.
> What methods have you guys used in order to display your GPLv* licenses
> in software with a user interface, as required?
> 

There is no need to display the GPL at each invocation of your
program, and you are not required to do so by the License, at all. The
only requirements to actually put your software under the GPL license
are:

1) the source code *must* contain a copyright notice, listing all the
copyright holders for that file, and a license statement saying that
the software is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public
License version WHATEVER. If you have more than one source file, each
file *should* contain the copyright notice and license statement.

2) you *should* also include a version of the GPL licence when you
distribute the code, either in source or in binary format, or in any
appropriately case advice the recipient about where a copy of the
licence might be retrieved.

Then, if your program is interactive, you *might* want to print out a
statement like "This program is distributed under the terms of the GNU
General Public License, version 3", e.g. when your program starts
without parameters or when it is launched with the flag "-v" (which
usually prints information about the version of the program) or "-h"
(for "help"). But you are not legally bound to do so, and could decide
otherwise, even if most of the programs distributed under GPL usually
follow one of those conventions. And in any case, you don't have to
show the full license (which would be useless) but just one line. This
is what you get if you call mutt with -v:

  katolaz@akela:~$ mutt -v | head -5
  Mutt 1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
  Copyright (C) 1996-2009 Michael R. Elkins and others.
  Mutt comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `mutt -vv'.
  Mutt is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
  under certain conditions; type `mutt -vv' for details.
  katolaz@akela:~$ 
  
For further reference, you can go through this short howto:

  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.en.html

I believe that some of the grief and anger felt by those who say they
"don't like the restrictions of the GPL" are due to such small
misunderstandings, which are, fortunately, easily curable :)

My2cents

KatolaZ

-- 
[ ~.,_  Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - GLUGCT -- Freaknet Medialab  ]  
[ "+.  katolaz [at] freaknet.org --- katolaz [at] yahoo.it  ]
[   @)   http://kalos.mine.nu ---  Devuan GNU + Linux User  ]
[ @@)  http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia --  GPG: 0B5F062F  ] 
[ (@@@)  Twitter: @KatolaZ - skype: katolaz -- github: KatolaZ  ]
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[Steve Litt]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 17:26:55 +0200
Adam Borowski  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 09:32:30AM -0500, Jim Murphy wrote:

> > The scripts I write I use GPLv2 only. "I" can change it later if I
> > need to.  
> 
> This works only if you never, ever, accept any code contributions from
> others.  And that's something I wouldn't recommend for a menu system.

This is one of the main reasons I'm considering going non-copyleft.
Without copyleft, any necessary licensing changes can be made (by me
and by others) without getting a sign-off from every single person who
ever inserted a line of code.

SteveT

Steve Litt
August 2016 featured book: Manager's Guide to Technical Troubleshooting
  Brand new, second edition
http://www.troubleshooters.com/mgr
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[Lars Noodén]

On 08/24/2016 06:47 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
[snip]
> And one thing I've always yearned for about GPLv3 is the anti patent
> provisions. Software patents are the spawn of satan, and the entire
> patent system is completely out of control (one click ordering my
> aunt's hat).
[snip]

Also, at the other end of the spectrum, yet still addressing the problem
of software patents, would be the Apache 2.0 license:

https://opensource.org/licenses/Apache-2.0

However, I prefer the strategy behind the GPL 3 more myself.

Regards,
Lars
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[Steve Litt]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 17:26:49 +0200
Svante Signell  wrote:

> On Wed, 2016-08-24 at 09:32 -0500, Jim Murphy wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Steve Litt
> >  wrote:  
> > > 
> > > Any opinions on which to choose?  
> > Don't know if this would make any difference to you or not, but the
> > Linux kernel is released under the GPLv2 only license(AFAICT). I
> > remember there being quite a bit of debate about this when the
> > GPLv3 license was coming out.  I personally don't know much
> > about Expat, so I won't offer any opinion on it.
> > 
> > The scripts I write I use GPLv2 only. "I" can change it later if I
> > need to.  
> 
> If you don't write any code directly related to (to be included in)
> the GNU/Linux kernel, which unfortunately is GPLv2 only, can you
> please consider using GPLv3+ (or at least GPLv2+) for future
> contributions?

Yes. I'm now considering GPLv3-only.

I would *never* consider GPLvAnything+, because I would never agree to
anything I haven't yet seen. I have no way of knowing who will be in
charge of the FSF in ten or twenty years, or from whom they will be
taking money.

Once upon a time, Redhat was a best of breed Free Software citizen.
Once upon a time, Debian was more trusted than Walter Cronkite. Things
change.

SteveT

Steve Litt
August 2016 featured book: Manager's Guide to Technical Troubleshooting
  Brand new, second edition
http://www.troubleshooters.com/mgr
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[Steve Litt]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 09:29:00 +0100
KatolaZ  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 01:43:25AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 01:31:18 -0400 (EDT)
> > Peter Olson  wrote:
> >   
> 
> [cut]
> 
> > > What complication don't you like about GPLv3+ ?  
> > 
> > I just briefly reread it, and didn't see an glaring problems.
> > However, I'd need to study it for a week to understand it.
> >   
> 
> Steve, I would warmly suggest you to seriously consider GPLv3. It is
> basically GPLv2, with further points specifically aimed at avoiding
> known vulnerabilites of the GPLv2, 

Hi KatolaZ,

Thank you, and thank Peter Olson, for your inciteful and incisive
pointing out of facts. I'm now adding GPL3 to the list. And one thing
I've always yearned for about GPLv3 is the anti patent provisions.
Software patents are the spawn of satan, and the entire patent system
is completely out of control (one click ordering my aunt's hat).

All of you have also crystalized one of the factors that have pushed me
away from GPL: The requirements of displaying it. The first UMENU was
in Perl, and it displayed the entire GPLv2 when it terminated. That's
kind of ugly. It would be *really* ugly with the much longer GPLv3.
What methods have you guys used in order to display your GPLv* licenses
in software with a user interface, as required?

Thank you to all of you for helping me focus my thoughts.

SteveT

Steve Litt
August 2016 featured book: Manager's Guide to Technical Troubleshooting
  Brand new, second edition
http://www.troubleshooters.com/mgr
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[Adam Borowski]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 09:32:30AM -0500, Jim Murphy wrote:
> Don't know if this would make any difference to you or not, but the
> Linux kernel is released under the GPLv2 only license(AFAICT). I
> remember there being quite a bit of debate about this when the
> GPLv3 license was coming out.  I personally don't know much
> about Expat, so I won't offer any opinion on it.
> 
> The scripts I write I use GPLv2 only. "I" can change it later if I
> need to.

This works only if you never, ever, accept any code contributions from
others.  And that's something I wouldn't recommend for a menu system.

-- 
An imaginary friend squared is a real enemy.
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[Svante Signell]

On Wed, 2016-08-24 at 09:32 -0500, Jim Murphy wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Steve Litt 
> wrote:
> > 
> > Any opinions on which to choose?
> Don't know if this would make any difference to you or not, but the
> Linux kernel is released under the GPLv2 only license(AFAICT). I
> remember there being quite a bit of debate about this when the
> GPLv3 license was coming out.  I personally don't know much
> about Expat, so I won't offer any opinion on it.
> 
> The scripts I write I use GPLv2 only. "I" can change it later if I
> need to.

If you don't write any code directly related to (to be included in) the
GNU/Linux kernel, which unfortunately is GPLv2 only, can you please consider
using GPLv3+ (or at least GPLv2+) for future contributions?

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] eudev [was: vdev]

[Go Linux]

On Wed, 8/24/16, Brad Campbell  wrote:

 Subject: Re: [DNG] eudev [was: vdev]
 To: dng@lists.dyne.org
 Date: Wednesday, August 24, 2016, 1:55 AM
 
> On 24/08/16 13:57, Steve Litt wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:37:53 +0800
>> Brad Campbell  wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/08/16 11:13, Steve Litt wrote:

[snip]


 These saboteurs just won't quit. It's our job to get out the word so
 bus1 fares no better than kdbus, because Lennart bragged about his
 plans when he gets the kernel to enforce use of systemd.
>>>
>>> I'm not worried. Mantra from get-go has been "Don't break userspace".
>>> If there is a valid use-case for a feature there will be plenty of
>>> opposition to it's removal.
>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> If bus1 really has technical merit, can demonstrate it solves real
>>> problems and has all its shortcomings addressed there is no reason it
>>> shouldn't be integrated into the kernel. They can't then just go and
>>> remove netlink to spite non-systemd users. It has an existing
>>> userspace and other use cases.
>>
>> Assuming by "they" you mean the Lennart and the Redhats, they already
>> have an established pattern and practice of breaking user space. If you
>> mean the kernel developers, they won't be the ones breaking userspace,
>> but a kernel-included bus1 will act very much like the firmware chips
>> they put into toner cartridges just so you won't buy competing toner.
> 
> I'm not entirely sure you understand what I mean by "break userspace".
> It is entirely in the context of the kernel and its interface with
> userspace and absolutely nothing to do with userspace itself. It means
> they can't just go and rip bits out of the kernel that mean *our*
> userspace won't run on it. I don't care what they do with *their* userspace.
> 
>> We're way past the point of thinking the world is a technocracy.
>>
>> Edbarx said it best: "attempting to remove systemd from SID is more
>> like attempting to remove the DNA from living cells expecting them not
>> to die."
>>
>> That sounds very much like breaking userspace to me.
> 
> No, again you have the wrong end of the "userspace". You refer to
> distributions, and I don't care what those distributions do, what they
> break or which init they use. What I care passionately about is ensuring
> that stuff that runs right now continues to run on newer kernels. Oddly
> enough, history has shown that's generally what Linus appears to care
> about also.
> 
> It takes *years* of notice and warning for features to be marked
> deprecated, and then years for them to be removed. *If* during those
> years we discover that our device manager is going to cease to function,
> we have several years to figure out a solution and get it implemented
> and tested. That's a BIG *IF*.
> 
> Don't Panic.
> 

Apropos of this discussion . . . there is a new troll on FDN ramping up the 
rhetoric.  It is revisionist history in action!  Number one on his list speaks 
volumes:

1. systemd users don't care about compatibility to other NIXes in the same way 
that BSD doesn't care about compatibility to us or our licenses. There hasn't 
been 100% POSIX in ages.

http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?p=623008#p623008

golinux

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[Jim Murphy]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Steve Litt  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm asking this question in a lot of places, but for sure I hold
> Devuan's answer in high regard.
>
> I'm putting the finishing touches on UMENU2, to the point where I'm
> ready to write the COPYING file and mark the Python files with a
> license. I'm considering two licenses:
>
> * Expat license: http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat
>
> * GPL Version 2: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
>
>
> A couple notes: The above Expat URL says Expat license is GPL
> compatible. I don't like GPLv3 because it's too complicated and IMHO a
> little too restrictive. Expat's similar to some MIT and BSD licenses
> and the X11 license.
>
> Any opinions on which to choose?

Don't know if this would make any difference to you or not, but the
Linux kernel is released under the GPLv2 only license(AFAICT). I
remember there being quite a bit of debate about this when the
GPLv3 license was coming out.  I personally don't know much
about Expat, so I won't offer any opinion on it.

The scripts I write I use GPLv2 only. "I" can change it later if I
need to.

FWIW,

Jim
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[KatolaZ]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 02:07:18AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting KatolaZ (kato...@freaknet.org):
> 
> > Apart from that, it is a copyleft licence, which guarantees to users
> > and developers the same 4 freedoms which inspired GPLv1 and
> > GPLv2. Just remember that, for a formal reason, GPLv2 and GPLv3 are
> > link-incompatible. In fact, each of them specifies that the software
>   ^
> > they cover (and any derivative) should be distributed under "the same
> > licence". 
> 
> FSF's frequently repeated notion that there's something of vital legal
> importance about the act of linking is unsupported by copyright law.
> (And yes, I'm saying that what the GPL FAQ says on this subject is
> total rubbish.  It's what FSF would _like_ to be the case.)
> 

Sorry for being sloppy on that. I intended to say that you can't
combine GPLv2-only and GPLv3 code and distribute a derivative work
under the terms of either the GPLv2 or GPLv3. But I believe this is a
bit too technical anyway, and applies only to software distributed
under GPLv2-only (i.e., all the cases where the clause "or any later
version" is missing from the license statement).

Linking is another story, and is indeed much more complicated than
that...

HND

KatolaZ

-- 
[ ~.,_  Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - GLUGCT -- Freaknet Medialab  ]  
[ "+.  katolaz [at] freaknet.org --- katolaz [at] yahoo.it  ]
[   @)   http://kalos.mine.nu ---  Devuan GNU + Linux User  ]
[ @@)  http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia --  GPG: 0B5F062F  ] 
[ (@@@)  Twitter: @KatolaZ - skype: katolaz -- github: KatolaZ  ]
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[Simon Hobson]

Rick Moen  wrote:

> OK, please cite me even a single judge's opinion in any copyright case
> that says that linking (e.g., dynamic linker calls to an ELF library)
> automatically creates a derivative work based on the linked code (which
> IIRC is the view expressed in the GPL FAQ).


OK, there's a bit of devil's advocate about this, to tease out some details I'm 
sure most of us are mostly ignorant about ...

Having looked to see what words they actually used, I can't see how the act of 
*dynamic* linking could be construed that way.

However, without a lot of work, doesn't the ability to link mean pulling in 
some sort of interface file and "building in" that file to your code ? Thus you 
would be incorporating the contents of that file and would have to comply with 
whatever the licence for that file says - isn't that what the lgpl is about ? 
And isn't something similar being argued about between Google and Oracle ?
And I suppose that then brings up ... to what extent does reading the interface 
description and then typing it out (rather than just "cp"ing the file) 
constitute copying ? On the assumption that function "bar" in library "foo" can 
only be called one way, then presumably there isn't much scope for creativity 
when writing the definition that your code building environment needs in order 
to be able to use function "bar".


___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[Adam Borowski]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 03:03:27AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Adam Borowski (kilob...@angband.pl):
> 
> > Your position is pretty fringe.
> 
> OK, please cite me even a single judge's opinion in any copyright case
> that says that linking (e.g., dynamic linker calls to an ELF library)
> automatically creates a derivative work based on the linked code (which
> IIRC is the view expressed in the GPL FAQ).

There's none, either way.

What matters for now is the point of view of ftpmasters of Debian, Fedora,
Gentoo and what not, who either believe the FSF or prefer to stay safe.

Which means that by disregarding a license conflict you lose the vast
majority of users.  And an user is a potential contributor.

-- 
An imaginary friend squared is a real enemy.
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Adam Borowski (kilob...@angband.pl):

> Your position is pretty fringe.

OK, please cite me even a single judge's opinion in any copyright case
that says that linking (e.g., dynamic linker calls to an ELF library)
automatically creates a derivative work based on the linked code (which
IIRC is the view expressed in the GPL FAQ).

I'll wait.  Take your time.

I'll be _more_ interested if you can cite such a case in one of the EU +
EEA countries, Canada, the USA, or Australia, both because those are
more likely relevant to international open source and because I am
fairly certain there have been no such cases.

Oh, and my position is also commonly articulated by pretty much all
the copyright attorneys active on OSI's licence discussion mailing
lists, FWIW.

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[Adam Borowski]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 02:07:18AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting KatolaZ (kato...@freaknet.org):
> 
> > Apart from that, it is a copyleft licence, which guarantees to users
> > and developers the same 4 freedoms which inspired GPLv1 and
> > GPLv2. Just remember that, for a formal reason, GPLv2 and GPLv3 are
> > link-incompatible. In fact, each of them specifies that the software
>   ^
> > they cover (and any derivative) should be distributed under "the same
> > licence". 
> 
> FSF's frequently repeated notion that there's something of vital legal
> importance about the act of linking is unsupported by copyright law.
> (And yes, I'm saying that what the GPL FAQ says on this subject is
> total rubbish.  It's what FSF would _like_ to be the case.)

Your position is pretty fringe.  This doesn't mean it's incorrect ("correct"
interpretation depends on who spent more money getting the precedent[1] rather
than on common sense), but for now, the situation is that most distributions
will refuse to take your code.


[1]. The US and its legal system is vastly overrepresented when it comes to
license litigation.  The rest of the world has no precedents but bribing
politicians works the same.
-- 
An imaginary friend squared is a real enemy.
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[Rick Moen]

Quoting KatolaZ (kato...@freaknet.org):

> Apart from that, it is a copyleft licence, which guarantees to users
> and developers the same 4 freedoms which inspired GPLv1 and
> GPLv2. Just remember that, for a formal reason, GPLv2 and GPLv3 are
> link-incompatible. In fact, each of them specifies that the software
  ^
> they cover (and any derivative) should be distributed under "the same
> licence". 

FSF's frequently repeated notion that there's something of vital legal
importance about the act of linking is unsupported by copyright law.
(And yes, I'm saying that what the GPL FAQ says on this subject is
total rubbish.  It's what FSF would _like_ to be the case.)

The coverage of any licence is determined by what a judge rules is or is
not a derivative work.  'Derivative work' is defined by caselaw, not by
FSF and not by Prof. Eben Moglen.  If you want to understand what is and
is not a derivative work, it's necessary to read and understand the
leading caselaw -- such as (in the USA) Micro Star v. FormGen, CAI v.
Altai, and Gates Rubber v. Bando Chemical.

Links on:  http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Licensing_and_Law/

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Steve Litt (sl...@troubleshooters.com):

> Hi all,
> 
> I'm asking this question in a lot of places, but for sure I hold
> Devuan's answer in high regard.
> 
> I'm putting the finishing touches on UMENU2, to the point where I'm
> ready to write the COPYING file and mark the Python files with a
> license. I'm considering two licenses:
> 
> * Expat license: http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat 
> 
> * GPL Version 2: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
> 
> 
> A couple notes: The above Expat URL says Expat license is GPL
> compatible.  I don't like GPLv3 because it's too complicated and IMHO a
> little too restrictive. Expat's similar to some MIT and BSD licenses
> and the X11 license.
> 
> Any opinions on which to choose?

{sigh}

It's really not possible to answer this question properly without your
saying what you're trying to achieve through choice of licence.

GPLv2 is of course the classic copyleft aka reciprocal licence[1].

Expat License is, along with the several variants of the BSD Licence, 
the classic permissive aka academic licence.  It's a fine licence for
its day and has many compelling wins as a permissive licence.  But
there's one important thing I will plead with you about:  I had to look
up w.t.f. you were talking about, _even_ though I'm a licensing guy,
because I'd never heard the term 'Expat License' before, and that's your
problem:  Nobody knows that name, and it doesn't signify that it might be
the technically correct name for it.  _Everyone_ calls it the MIT
License or MIT X11 License.  (Yes, it _is_ MIT License.)  And that is
why you, too, should reference it as 'MIT License'.

MIT Licence is a unilateral (vice bilateral) contract.  It's actually a
cleaned up, i.e., improved version of the BSD License as rewritten by
MIT lawyers, to make it easier to read and understand.  Its broader
enumeration of rights granted make it include an implicit patent rights
grant.  Also, it explicitly includes the right to sublicense, which
isn't mentioned explicitly in the BSD licences.  It also disclaims
(unlike BSD) any warranty that the licensor guarantees non-infringement
of someone else's intellectual property.

Yes, MIT License is indeed GPL-compatible.  So are 3-clause and 2-clause
BSD.  (But I recommend MIT License over those.)

If you're looking for a thoroughly modern academic (permissive) licence,
look no further than Apache License (ASL) v. 2.0.  ASL specifically
addresses trademarks.  It is specifically designed to allow derivatives
of ASL-licensed works to be compatible with the licensing of GPL code,
but, annoyingly, only with GPL v.3 code.

According to a survey by Black Duck Software, the most popular open
source licences, in order, are:

MIT License   26%
GPL 2.0   21%
Apache License 2.016%
GPL 3.09%
BSD 3-clause   6%
LGPL 2.1   4%
Artistic License[1]4%
LGPL 3.0   2%
ISC License2%
Microsoft PL   2%
Eclipse PL 2%
Code Project Open L 1.02   1%
BSD 2-clause  <1%
CDDL 1.0  <1%
Affero GPL 3 & later  <1%
Microsoft Reciprocal L<1%
GPL w/Classpath Exception <1%
WTFPL[1]  <1%
CDDL 1.0  <1%

I cite this table of licence popularity (from
https://www.blackducksoftware.com/top-open-source-licenses) to raise the
point that you really want to stick with one of the major licences
unless you have an extremely compelling reason to do otherwise.  And the
top three are, obviously, _the_ major licences.  Overwhelmingly.

Why might you want GPL 2.0 specifically?  That would imply you wish to
enforce reciprocality onto derivative works, i.e. you're not OK with
people creating and sending out proprietary derivatives of your work.
(One use-case for GPL 2.0 or other similar copyleft/reciprocal licences
is as part of a dual-licensing regime to support a proprietary software
business model:  You offer the essential code implementing your ideas
to the public under copyleft, which prevents any commercial competitor
from creating proprietary offshoots.  Having made your code popular that
way, you _then_ also offer it under proprietary licensing with a bigger
feature set and enhancements, for money.  As long as you yourself own
all the needed copyrights, you can keep doing this.)

Why might you want ASL 2.0 or MIT License specifically?  That would
imply you want your code to be maximally attractive for third-party
reuse and adaptation, and don't object to proprietary derivatives.


[1] Incompetently drafted licence.  Do not use for anything.

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[Adam Borowski]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 01:20:24AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> I'm putting the finishing touches on UMENU2, to the point where I'm
> ready to write the COPYING file and mark the Python files with a
> license. I'm considering two licenses:
> 
> * Expat license: http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat 
> 
> * GPL Version 2: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
> 
> A couple notes: The above Expat URL says Expat license is GPL
> compatible. I don't like GPLv3 because it's too complicated and IMHO a
> little too restrictive. Expat's similar to some MIT and BSD licenses
> and the X11 license.

If you want copyleft yet don't like GPL3, I'd recommend GPL2+ (ie, "or
higher") instead of GPL2 only.  This will allow downstream distributions to
link with GPL3{+,} libraries, as well as GPL4 or GPL65535 in the future.

-- 
An imaginary friend squared is a real enemy.
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[KatolaZ]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 01:43:25AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 01:31:18 -0400 (EDT)
> Peter Olson  wrote:
> 

[cut]

> > What complication don't you like about GPLv3+ ?
> 
> I just briefly reread it, and didn't see an glaring problems.
> However, I'd need to study it for a week to understand it.
> 

Steve, I would warmly suggest you to seriously consider GPLv3. It is
basically GPLv2, with further points specifically aimed at avoiding
known vulnerabilites of the GPLv2, especially regarding "tivoization"
(the possibility of forcing a device to stop working if it detects
changes in the GPL-covered software it uses, which is against freedom
1) and patent-related issues (in particular, if a patent covers part
of a GLPv3 software, the act of distribution of that software by the
developer is considered as the an automatic, unlimited, royalty-free
license for that patent, which bolsters freedom 2 and freedom 3). Here
a short prose about the improvements introduced by GPLv3:

  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html

Apart from that, it is a copyleft licence, which guarantees to users
and developers the same 4 freedoms which inspired GPLv1 and
GPLv2. Just remember that, for a formal reason, GPLv2 and GPLv3 are
link-incompatible. In fact, each of them specifies that the software
they cover (and any derivative) should be distributed under "the same
licence". 

Feel free to post any doubt here.

HND

KatolaZ

-- 
[ ~.,_  Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - GLUGCT -- Freaknet Medialab  ]  
[ "+.  katolaz [at] freaknet.org --- katolaz [at] yahoo.it  ]
[   @)   http://kalos.mine.nu ---  Devuan GNU + Linux User  ]
[ @@)  http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia --  GPG: 0B5F062F  ] 
[ (@@@)  Twitter: @KatolaZ - skype: katolaz -- github: KatolaZ  ]
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] eudev [was: vdev]

[Brad Campbell]

On 24/08/16 13:57, Steve Litt wrote:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:37:53 +0800
Brad Campbell  wrote:


On 24/08/16 11:13, Steve Litt wrote:

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 21:47:41 -0400
Clarke Sideroad  wrote:


I think kdbus is dead due to the bad press, but I believe there is
bus1 coming along to replace that.
https://github.com/bus1/bus1
http://www.bus1.org/

Some familiar names, but possibly not directly part of
systemd

Clarke



DANGER Will Robinson. From the COPYING document:

===
COPYRIGHT: (ordered alphabetically)
Copyright (C) 2014-2015 Red Hat, Inc.
AUTHORS: (ordered alphabetically)
David Herrmann 
Tom Gundersen 
===

And from Wikipedia's systemd page:

===
Original author(s)  
Lennart Poettering, Kay Sievers, Harald
Hoyer, Daniel Mack, Tom Gundersen and David Herrmann
===

These saboteurs just won't quit. It's our job to get out the word so
bus1 fares no better than kdbus, because Lennart bragged about his
plans when he gets the kernel to enforce use of systemd.


I'm not worried. Mantra from get-go has been "Don't break userspace".
If there is a valid use-case for a feature there will be plenty of
opposition to it's removal.


[snip]


If bus1 really has technical merit, can demonstrate it solves real
problems and has all its shortcomings addressed there is no reason it
shouldn't be integrated into the kernel. They can't then just go and
remove netlink to spite non-systemd users. It has an existing
userspace and other use cases.


Assuming by "they" you mean the Lennart and the Redhats, they already
have an established pattern and practice of breaking user space. If you
mean the kernel developers, they won't be the ones breaking userspace,
but a kernel-included bus1 will act very much like the firmware chips
they put into toner cartridges just so you won't buy competing toner.


I'm not entirely sure you understand what I mean by "break userspace". 
It is entirely in the context of the kernel and its interface with 
userspace and absolutely nothing to do with userspace itself. It means 
they can't just go and rip bits out of the kernel that mean *our* 
userspace won't run on it. I don't care what they do with *their* userspace.




We're way past the point of thinking the world is a technocracy.

Edbarx said it best: "attempting to remove systemd from SID is more
like attempting to remove the DNA from living cells expecting them not
to die."

That sounds very much like breaking userspace to me.


No, again you have the wrong end of the "userspace". You refer to 
distributions, and I don't care what those distributions do, what they 
break or which init they use. What I care passionately about is ensuring 
that stuff that runs right now continues to run on newer kernels. Oddly 
enough, history has shown that's generally what Linus appears to care 
about also.


It takes *years* of notice and warning for features to be marked 
deprecated, and then years for them to be removed. *If* during those 
years we discover that our device manager is going to cease to function, 
we have several years to figure out a solution and get it implemented 
and tested. That's a BIG *IF*.


Don't Panic.

--
Dolphins are so intelligent that within a few weeks they can
train Americans to stand at the edge of the pool and throw them
fish.
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

[aitor_czr]

Hi,

On 08/24/2016 07:57 AM, Steve Litt  wrote:

On August 24, 2016 at 1:20 AM Steve Litt
> >  wrote:

>
>  [...]
>

> >A couple notes: The above Expat URL says Expat license is GPL
> >compatible. I don't like GPLv3 because it's too complicated and
> >IMHO a little too restrictive. Expat's similar to some MIT and BSD
> >licenses and the X11 license.

>
>What complication don't you like about GPLv3+ ?

I just briefly reread it, and didn't see an glaring problems.
However, I'd need to study it for a week to understand it.


One year ago i asked to the fsf about ther requeriments for being in 
their list (referring to gnuinos), and it's essential to have a licence; 
so, i'm also interested in this issue.


Cheers,

  Aitor.


___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] eudev [was: vdev]

[Didier Kryn]

Le 24/08/2016 01:29, Adam Borowski a écrit :

[~/linux]$ git fetch linus
remote: Counting objects: 795, done.
remote: Compressing objects: 100% (481/481), done.
remote: Total 795 (delta 477), reused 517 (delta 311)
Receiving objects: 100% (795/795), 1.54 MiB | 660.00 KiB/s, done.
Resolving deltas: 100% (477/477), done.
 From git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux
3408fef..7a1dcf6  master -> linus/master
  * [new tag] v4.8-rc3   -> v4.8-rc3
[~/linux]$ git log -i -S kdbus
[~/linux]$ git log -i --grep=kdbus

[~/linux]$


Waouh Adam! You appear to know a lot of tricks. I'm very admirative :-)

Didier

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng