Re: PL vs. BSD License
Hi Alex, > LPGL does not help very much, as I see it, because "linking" is not > typical usage. as I mentioned earlier, people involved in Lisp development already thought about it and invented LLGPL that defines LGPL for use in Lisp context which is rather different from C linking etc. That might be something to look at. Other popular licence used with Common Lisp seems to be a BSD style and MIT licence. Although comp.lang.lisp is rather unfriendly to anything not Common Lisp, maybe the people there could provide some hints on choosing a suitable licence? Cheers, Tomas -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
Re: PL vs. BSD License
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Alexander Burger wrote: > Thinking more about this, I must say that probably there isn't anything > which can be protected. > > What is PicoLisp? A collection of ideas, data structures, language > constructs, perhaps a programming philosophy. Nothing which you can > protect anyway. > > What is covered by these licenses is just the _code_. But the code of > PicoLisp is rather trivial. I re-implemented it so many times, and > anybody who likes could do the same without that we could stop him with > _any_ license. Am I wrong here? I think that you're right. Part of what makes tinkering with PicoLisp fun for me is that its design is so simple that I can easily keep the whole thing "in my head," as it were. But that also means that it'd be pretty easy to clone, so the main thing that the GPL protects, IMHO, is merely the openness of your canonical PicoLisp implementation. But that will be open as long as you decide you want to keep it open. E.g., look at X.org, SQLite, Clang, or the BSDs themselves: all of them have BSD or MIT licenses, but their development is still fully in-the-open, and while I know there are uses of at least SQLite that would violate the GPL if it were so licensed, I don't feel as if they're in any way adversely affecting SQLite. If you make PicoLisp BSD, then its code isn't going anywhere or becoming any more closed unless you decide to take it that direction. What will happen is that it'll be a lot easier to use PicoLisp in commercial contexts, which could result in it being used much more widely. The trade-off is that improvements to PicoLisp made in those commercial contexts wouldn't necessary be submitted upstream to you. That's the trade-off--and whether the benefits are worth it is entirely up to you. --Benjamin -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
Re: PL vs. BSD License
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 05:08:11PM +0200, Peter Fischer wrote: > So if you want some part/aspect of picolisp to be free and open > forever, put these files unter LGPL and the rest under BSD. Thinking more about this, I must say that probably there isn't anything which can be protected. What is PicoLisp? A collection of ideas, data structures, language constructs, perhaps a programming philosophy. Nothing which you can protect anyway. What is covered by these licenses is just the _code_. But the code of PicoLisp is rather trivial. I re-implemented it so many times, and anybody who likes could do the same without that we could stop him with _any_ license. Am I wrong here? Cheers, - Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
Re: PL vs. BSD License
Hi Peter, On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 05:08:11PM +0200, Peter Fischer wrote: > some kind of "embrace and extend" (like what happened to kerberos > after win 2k), so that the market would later force you to support > "industry standards", parts of which are patented and/or expensive. Oops, that's tough. Thanks for that aspect, I didn't think that way. Is any of the existing licenses able to defend against that? > So if you want some part/aspect of picolisp to be free and open > forever, put these files unter LGPL and the rest under BSD. LPGL does not help very much, as I see it, because "linking" is not typical usage. Cheers, - Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
Re: PL vs. BSD License
On 03.08.2010 09:31, Alexander Burger wrote: On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 09:16:12AM +0200, Tomas Hlavaty wrote: Agreed, but the new licence would encurage "taking away" as opposed to "giving away". I don't think so. If somebody takes it, modifies it, or does whatever she likes, it does in no way have any influence on the existing versions. So it does not "take away" anything. It just does not force people to "add" their modifications. if a picolisp bloody beginner is allowed to say something: I personally do not even mind if someone takes some source, alters it and becomes filthy rich selling the results. But I would mind some kind of "embrace and extend" (like what happened to kerberos after win 2k), so that the market would later force you to support "industry standards", parts of which are patented and/or expensive. Implementations can be free to alter by everyone, standards must not be free to alter by everyone. So if you want some part/aspect of picolisp to be free and open forever, put these files unter LGPL and the rest under BSD. Peter -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
Re: PL vs. BSD License
Hi Tomas, On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 09:16:12AM +0200, Tomas Hlavaty wrote: > I think it depends on your definition of "less restrictive". BSD > licence is actually more restrictive from the users point of view, > e.g. somebody can take it and restrict or block users access to the > modified source code. > ... > Agreed, but the new licence would encurage "taking away" as opposed to > "giving away". I don't think so. If somebody takes it, modifies it, or does whatever she likes, it does in no way have any influence on the existing versions. So it does not "take away" anything. It just does not force people to "add" their modifications. > But if it means more people actualy using it, it might be a good thing; > more opportunities for consulting and product development. Yep. This is why I started this discussion. Cheers, - Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
Re: PL vs. BSD License
Hi Alex, > The BSD license is _less_ restricted. I think it depends on your definition of "less restrictive". BSD licence is actually more restrictive from the users point of view, e.g. somebody can take it and restrict or block users access to the modified source code. > Giving away per se is not bad. Agreed, but the new licence would encurage "taking away" as opposed to "giving away". But if it means more people actualy using it, it might be a good thing; more opportunities for consulting and product development. >> Although I wouldn't mind a BSD style licence. > > OK, thanks. Does this also include your XML stuff and other input? Yes. > Do you think that we would _lose_ anything? I don't know. Cheers, Tomas -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
