Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
If code is released to the public domain, anyone can use it without restriction. Right. But there would be no license to protect us, to keep someone like Microsoft from copying our code, and re-releasing it as their own under a proprietary license. Yeah, that's a subset of anyone can use it without restriction. So as I wrote my programs, I started to use the GNU GPL. This made it clear that anyone could use my programs, and the source code would remain free and open to everyone. That last part is not entirely accurate. [...] it prevented others from re-releasing my programs without making sure people had access to the source code. That, however, is accurate. I was happy with that. I opted not to use MIT or BSD for personal reasons, I just thought the GNU GPL was the right one for me. Similarly to releasing things into the public domain (where applicable), those licences differ from the GPL in that they do not impose copyleft. So following your perfectly understandable above explanation, of course you specifically wanted a licence with copyleft. Moving from public domain to a MIT-style licence wouldn't have added any copyleft (only attribution, that is, the requirement to display the copyright notice somewhere). Regards, Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
I just ask that you choose a license that preserves the freedom of the source code, so that everyone may use it and contribute to it. Rhetorically speaking, MIT-style licences could be read as not preserving the source's freedoms as much as licences with copyleft (such as the GPLs). (Note the distinction of source's freedoms and recipients' freedoms in this paragraph of my reply and the next. This is important.) Avoid licenses that limit the freedom of users, including licenses that look free but exclude certain classes of users (May not be used by the military or For non-commercial use only.) Or for legal use only or for ethical use only etc. (Seen 'em all.) Technically, the GPL does restrict an individual user's freedoms as well, though their disadvantage there is of course only to insure the freedoms of (potential) downstream recipients. However, these different licenses does make it a bit difficult to share code between projects, if they have different licenses. Specifically, if (incompatible) copylefts are involved. That's another reason why I prefer to contribute only to programs under the GNU GPL, so I can easily re-use code from one project to help out another. Ah, but you could do so if you primarily contributed to programs under MIT-style licences as well. And, specifically, the MIT-style licences allow anyone to relicense the content under the GPL (ie adding copyleft), but it naturally doesn't work the other way around. As far as the version of the GNU GPL, I happen to prefer version 2 for DOS programs because I think version 2 applies well to statically-linked programs (typical in DOS.) The most licence-compatible option (if you have already decided to employ the GPL) is to chose wording (such as the FSF's default suggestion) which allows GPLv2+; if you merely specify GPLv2 but do not explicitly state the option to change to a newer one, then this is the same as explicitly specifying GPL v2-only (like the licence of current Linux releases) - that is, that source's copyleft is then incompatible with the copyleft of source released under GPLv3(+). Not to imply you didn't know all of those details. I merely felt that your descriptions here could use some more context. After all, while it's all perfectly simple, choosing a licence should occur after one has learned of the potential consequences of such a choice. Regards, Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] Licensing and copyleft (Was: Re: FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
I'm missing something here. The big restriction that a GPL license imposes is copyleft. If you use GPL code *AND* you distribute your work then you have to make your source code available too. You can profit from your work and the work of others but you can't hide your changes. In the case of an author making a change to GPLed work (and distributing it) that just means they need to make their changes available, usually as a patch. Presumably the author benefited from having the original work available and it is quite reasonable for them to continue the chain of generosity. Anything that propagates the golden rule is a good thing. Other licenses may be more free in that they have less restrictions, including the copyleft. Microsoft benefited when they picked up the BSD derived TCP/IP code and applications and didn't have to pass any changes along. That's great for them, but that's not the kind of commercial activity I want to support. If somebody uses open source code, they should be willing to show their changes for others to build on. I have been a user of open source code (GPL) for over 20 years now starting with early versions of gcc. Before I released my own code under the GPL v3 I was paid by a major corporation with three initials to write open source code, usually under GPL2. That same corporation was a major player in open source and spent a lot of time making sure they complied with the rules, including redistribution of changes. It works for them and it works for a lot of other people. I find it hard to imagine how something so simple gets twisted up in meta discussions. Show me where somebody was harmed by the copyleft provisions of GPL licenses .. and not just having their feelings hurt. Mike -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Licensing and copyleft (Was: Re: FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
~Warning~: Pedantry ahead. Only read on if you dare. (Then again, if you read more than eight bits of my past contributions, you probably already recognised that I'm a proud and unapologetic pedant.) Other licenses may be more free in that they have less restrictions, including the copyleft. Precisely. It merely depends on which freedoms we're referring to. That's great for them, but that's not the kind of commercial activity I want to support. That's great for you. So what? If somebody uses open source code, they should be willing to show their changes for others to build on. (Which isn't exactly what the GPL's copyleft enforces, because the only others who must be provided with the changed source are downstream recipients. There is no notion of community or public intrinsically linked to it. For that, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Public_License - incidentally, not FSF-approved and avoided by others as well.) I have been a user of open source code (GPL) for over 20 years now starting with early versions of gcc. Before I released my own code under the GPL v3 I was paid by a major corporation with three initials to write open source code, usually under GPL2. GPL2, really? Do you mean v2 only? Or v2 or later? That same corporation was a major player in open source and spent a lot of time making sure they complied with the rules, including redistribution of changes. It works for them and it works for a lot of other people. I find it hard to imagine how something so simple gets twisted up in meta discussions. I find it hard to imagine how this thread's current topic (which, by the way, still was about FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications... just another sort of compatibility!) could be considered a meta discussion that twisted up anything. I'd specifically like to reject your compliment that this discussion is in any way meta, because in the current culture any software development requires licensing decisions. Even just releasing source code without any statement this or that way is considered to imply a decision. So, arguably, licensing becomes part of writing software, merely a different kind of technical matter. That is all so regardless whether a particular developer appreciates it. And if they're the one to make these decisions then I believe they should be aware. Show me where somebody was harmed by the copyleft provisions of GPL licenses .. Isn't that obvious? Any incident can be considered harmful in which the GPL specifically causes someone to refrain from re-using code (whether an entire project or only a tiny part of it) and they instead re-implement similar functionality, but worse. Note that I don't care about the success of a particular business that depends on selling copies of software without Free source, but (regardless of how the software is developed and distributed) in such cases there is still harm for any recipient/user because the software they get to use is worse than it could be if everyone had worked together. (Arguably, whenever the software is in some way networked and communicates with other users' software, the others might be disadvantaged as well - for instance, because the re-implementation adheres to protocol standards less well than the copylefted alternative does.) Unquestionably, in such scenarios a licence with (severe) copyleft is less harmful than, say, one where the source isn't released at all. For that reason as well, I consider it disingenuous to refer to copyleft as somehow viral unless one would too refer to any kind of closed-source licensing as viral in the same manner (though more severely). What is unquestionable too is that copyleft of whatever severity is a compromise that, well, forces individual recipients to pass on their source changes (at least) to downstream recipients. And if you find that compromise works for you, yeah, great, go for it! Regards, Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Licensing and copyleft (Was: Re: FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
Overly pedantic. The thread title stopped matching the thread contents a few replies ago - it has not discussed FreeDOS compatibility in the recent replies. It has devolved into an open source licensing meta discussion. It is a meta discussion by most reasonable measures, and I changed the topic in my reply to reflect that. I am quite happy working with GPLed code. I also fully respect the right of other people to choose the license for their project that suits them. Arguing over levels of free is borderline silly - we're not talking about intellectual property that is going to change the world. Mike -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Licensing and copyleft (Was: Re: FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
I agree, I'm certainly overly pedantic and unreasonable and silly. And you're the one using the term intellectual property as if that was a coherent concept. =) -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Licensing and copyleft (Was: Re: FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
On 7/6/2012 12:25 PM, C. Masloch wrote: I agree, I'm certainly overly pedantic and unreasonable and silly. And you're the one using the term intellectual property as if that was a coherent concept. =) I guess I don't understand that last message either. The purpose of all of these licenses is to protect the thought that goes into the code, and that is commonly recognized as intellectual property. You are willing to argue the finer points of each license and how it restricts the usage of the code (read: intellectual property), but do you mean to imply here that intellectual property is not a coherent concept? If so, why be pedantic over something that is not coherent? On that note, I'm going back to playing with my intellectual property. Sorry .. I meant code ... Mike -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Licensing and copyleft (Was: Re: FreeDOS compatibility with DOS applications
lol -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
