Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] Moving to MIT license

[Richard L. Hamilton]

Specific graphics can relate to branding; if they didn't want to do that, I can 
understand it.

They did put a lot of work into clang/llvm and CUPS, and that's certainly 
benefited others.  They've open sourced some things they wrote themselves (or 
bought), like libdispatch and the Swift compiler front-end, and FoundationDB.

As to why they do some things and not others, why do most people or 
organizations do most things?  For advantage, or sometimes because their 
lawyers told them to.  Now not all advantage is to anyone else's disadvantage, 
nor necessarily measurable in single-quarter profit. But selfless virtue should 
not be expected of any organization. :-)

> On Jun 17, 2018, at 11:13, Antonis Tsolomitis  > wrote:
> 
> 
> Exactly. This is the problem. One says "allow me so I can improve the 
> project" and
> after you allow s/he says "I will not contribute back".
> 
> This was why I mentioned Apple. Is it true of false that Apple used BSD to 
> build
> their Os? Is it true or false that they made billions of dollars with the 
> help of it?
> Is it true or false that the BSD community asked Apple to donate a few icons
> for their desktop, as a "thank you", and Apple refused?
> 
> This is the information I read on sites such as linuxtoday.com 
>  at that time.
> If false, OK. I will not trust linuxtoday again and forget what follows.
> 
> For me what Apple did was OK with the license, but if they indeed refused
> to donate a few desktop icons back to the project then I find this
> a strongly unethical attitude allowed by the license.
> 
> I am not a developer of CDE. Developers will decide what they want to do
> in the future. I just express my opinion since Jon asked about opinions.
> 
> Antonis.
> 
> 
> 
> Στις 16/06/2018 10:20 μμ, ο Chase έγραψε:
>> I can see both sides of the argument, although I must say that permissive 
>> licenses rarely see corporate users contribute back their code, Andrew 
>> tanenbaum, creator of Minix, received a letter from an employee of intel 
>> stating how intel preferred permissively licensed software to copyleft 
>> software as they wouldn't have to give their contributions to their 
>> competitors, which meant they were able to use Minix in the intel management 
>> engine without contributing code back to Minix. Although, I also think that 
>> the market CDE was created for, workstations, is long dead and gone, and 
>> thus any meaningful corporate contributions to CDE with it. I say we simply 
>> stick with LGPL, motif hasn't moved yet, the xutils havent moved, so that is 
>> going to be a lot of work for what seems to be very little reward.
>> 
>> Also, as far as I can tell (I am not a lawyer), the EPL is only incompatible 
>> with the GPL, not the LGPL, so we could probably still see an updated 
>> kornshell in CDE. I would however like to see the assets bumped to 
>> CC-BY-SA-4.0 still.
>> 
>> Thank you for your time,
>> -Chase
>> 
>> 
>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On June 14, 2018 5:27 AM, Antonis Tsolomitis  
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 14/06/2018 12:55 μμ, Matthew R. Trower wrote:
 You seem to hold developers in low regard. Please consider: what happens 
 to a project with no developers?
 
>>> 
>>> Of course not. I have developed many things in the TeX world and of course 
>>> I am grateful to
>>> Jon and others who worked hard to free CDE and make it work.
>>> 
>>> So on the contrary, I am grateful to developers. I am just afraid that a 
>>> wrong turn will
>>> hurt again CDE. That is all.
>>> 
>>> And what about users? I have proof for the other direction. I have paid for 
>>> CDE and
>>> as a user I was treated with disrespect.*
>>> 
>>> Someone must think of the users too. Not only the developers.
>>> 
>>> Antonis.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *The only useful thing about that buy was the book it came with the CD 
>>> which I now use
>>> with the LGPL CDE.
>> 
> 
> --
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org ! 
> http://sdm.link/slashdot___ 
> 
> cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
> cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net 
> 
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel

Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] Moving to MIT license

[Antonis Tsolomitis]

  
  

  Exactly. This is the problem. One says "allow me so I can improve
  the project" and 
  after you allow s/he says "I will not contribute back".
  
  This was why I mentioned Apple. Is it true of false that Apple
  used BSD to build
  their Os? Is it true or false that they made billions of dollars
  with the help of it?
  Is it true or false that the BSD community asked Apple to donate a
  few icons
  for their desktop, as a "thank you", and Apple refused?
  
  This is the information I read on sites such as linuxtoday.com at
  that time.
  If false, OK. I will not trust linuxtoday again and forget what
  follows.
  
  For me what Apple did was OK with the license, but if they indeed
  refused
  to donate a few desktop icons back to the project then I find this
  a strongly unethical attitude allowed by the license.
  
  I am not a developer of CDE. Developers will decide what they want
  to do
  in the future. I just express my opinion since Jon asked about
  opinions.
  
  Antonis.
  
  
  
  Στις 16/06/2018 10:20 μμ, ο Chase έγραψε:


  I can see both sides of the argument, although I must say
that permissive licenses rarely see corporate users contribute
back their code, Andrew tanenbaum, creator of Minix, received a
letter from an employee of intel stating how intel preferred
permissively licensed software to copyleft software as they
wouldn't have to give their contributions to their competitors,
which meant they were able to use Minix in the intel management
engine without contributing code back to Minix. Although, I also
think that the market CDE was created for, workstations, is long
dead and gone, and thus any meaningful corporate contributions
to CDE with it. I say we simply stick with LGPL, motif hasn't
moved yet, the xutils havent moved, so that is going to be a lot
of work for what seems to be very little reward.
  
  
  
  Also, as far as I can tell (I am not a lawyer), the EPL is
only incompatible with the GPL, not the LGPL, so we could
probably still see an updated kornshell in CDE. I would however
like to see the assets bumped to CC-BY-SA-4.0 still.
  
  
  

  Thank you for your time,
  
  -Chase
  



  
  
  
  ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
  
   On June 14, 2018 5:27 AM, Antonis Tsolomitis
 wrote:
  
   
  
  




On 14/06/2018 12:55 μμ, Matthew R.
  Trower wrote:


  You seem to hold developers in low regard. Please consider: what happens to a project with no developers?





Of course not. I have developed many things in the TeX
  world and of course I am grateful to

 Jon and others who worked hard to free CDE and make it
  work.

 

 So on the contrary, I am grateful to developers. I am just
  afraid that a wrong turn will 

 hurt again CDE. That is all.

 

 And what about users? I have proof for the other
  direction. I have paid for CDE and

 as a user I was treated with disrespect.*

 

 Someone must think of the users too. Not only the
  developers.

 

 Antonis.

 

 

 *The only useful thing about that buy was the book it came
  with the CD which I now use

 with the LGPL CDE.

  
  
  


  


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel

Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] Moving to MIT license

[Chase via cdesktopenv-devel]

I can see both sides of the argument, although I must say that permissive 
licenses rarely see corporate users contribute back their code, Andrew 
tanenbaum, creator of Minix, received a letter from an employee of intel 
stating how intel preferred permissively licensed software to copyleft software 
as they wouldn't have to give their contributions to their competitors, which 
meant they were able to use Minix in the intel management engine without 
contributing code back to Minix. Although, I also think that the market CDE was 
created for, workstations, is long dead and gone, and thus any meaningful 
corporate contributions to CDE with it. I say we simply stick with LGPL, motif 
hasn't moved yet, the xutils havent moved, so that is going to be a lot of work 
for what seems to be very little reward.

Also, as far as I can tell (I am not a lawyer), the EPL is only incompatible 
with the GPL, not the LGPL, so we could probably still see an updated kornshell 
in CDE. I would however like to see the assets bumped to CC-BY-SA-4.0 still.

Thank you for your time,
-Chase

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On June 14, 2018 5:27 AM, Antonis Tsolomitis  
wrote:

> On 14/06/2018 12:55 μμ, Matthew R. Trower wrote:
>
>> You seem to hold developers in low regard. Please consider: what happens to 
>> a project with no developers?
>
> Of course not. I have developed many things in the TeX world and of course I 
> am grateful to
> Jon and others who worked hard to free CDE and make it work.
>
> So on the contrary, I am grateful to developers. I am just afraid that a 
> wrong turn will
> hurt again CDE. That is all.
>
> And what about users? I have proof for the other direction. I have paid for 
> CDE and
> as a user I was treated with disrespect.*
>
> Someone must think of the users too. Not only the developers.
>
> Antonis.
>
> *The only useful thing about that buy was the book it came with the CD which 
> I now use
> with the LGPL CDE.--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel

Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] Moving to MIT license

[Matthew R. Trower]

Antonis...

Bluntly, I'm not interested in getting into a full-fledged political argument 
with you (or anyone on this list). But I will say a few things...

You seem to hold developers in low regard. Please consider: what happens to a 
project with no developers?

I have said nothing against the developers of KDE, etc. There are many fine 
GPL/copyleft projects (if that is what you're getting at); Emacs is a sterling 
example.

When CDE was commercial, *copyright holders* had full freedom --- corporate 
entities such as IBM, HP, etc. The actual developers ‎were bound just as much 
by proprietary licensing as end users were‎.

The MIT license is very short. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand it‎; 
you can just read it (that's one of its advantages). It certainly does not 
prohibit binary distribution.

Permitting binary-only distribution (and redistribution!) does not necessarily 
mean you will be denied source code.  FreeBSD is BSD licensed. This project has 
been very successful, and full source code is freely available. X-Windows is 
MIT licensed, and can be distributed binary-only (but you still use X, right?). 
You say you trust in the FSF; the FSF agrees that many of these permissive 
licenses qualify as free software licenses.

If CDE moves to MIT or BSD, the SourceForge repo isn't going to disappear. 
Nobody is trying to take away your source code.

  Original Message  
From: Antonis Tsolomitis
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 04:24
To: cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] Moving to MIT license



On 14/06/2018 09:23 πμ, Matthew R. Trower wrote:
> Antonis Tsolomitis  writes:
>
>> And what people mean by "LGPL is restrictive" ? Restrictive for who?
> For any developer touching the code.

Exactly. So when someone says "restrictive" it makes no sense. S/he must say
"restrictive to the developer and permissive to the user".

GPL is not restrictive to the user. And by the way, Gnome, KDE etc 
developers
what are they? different species?

Moreover, when CDE was commercial, developers of CDE had full freedom. 
Did you see
the project survive or progress ? It was trapped to extinction.
I remember... I bought it and never used it because
it was unusable on the next RedHat release.

I am not a lawyer either. So I have learned a simple thing. To trust FSF 
more than anything else
on such issues.

And I dislike binary distribution without the source code and the right 
to further modify it.
If for example (I am not sure), MIT allows "binary only" distribution 
without releasing the source code
and the right to modify, I am against it.

Antonis.



--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel

Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] Moving to MIT license

[Antonis Tsolomitis]

On 14/06/2018 09:23 πμ, Matthew R. Trower wrote:

Antonis Tsolomitis  writes:


And what people mean by "LGPL is restrictive" ? Restrictive for who?

For any developer touching the code.


Exactly. So when someone says "restrictive" it makes no sense. S/he must say
"restrictive to the developer and permissive to the user".

GPL is not restrictive to the user. And by the way, Gnome, KDE etc 
developers

what are they? different species?

Moreover, when CDE was commercial, developers of CDE had full freedom. 
Did you see

the project survive or progress ? It was trapped to extinction.
I remember... I bought it and never used it because
it was unusable on the next RedHat release.

I am not a lawyer either. So I have learned a simple thing. To trust FSF 
more than anything else

on such issues.

And I dislike binary distribution without the source code and the right 
to further modify it.
If for example (I am not sure), MIT allows "binary only" distribution 
without releasing the source code

and the right to modify, I am against it.

Antonis.



--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel

Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] Moving to MIT license

[Matthew R. Trower]

Antonis Tsolomitis  writes:

> And what people mean by "LGPL is restrictive" ? Restrictive for who?

For any developer touching the code.

> I am mainly a user. And for example the "original BSD" is very restrictive 
> for my freedom
> (and very nice for Apple by the way).
> And if such a license was to be chosen, I would have to stop using CDE, and 
> wait 
> for someone to fork it and continue with LGPL.

BSD 4-clause --- the original BSD license:

--
Copyright (c) , 
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
   documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
   must display the following acknowledgement:
   This product includes software developed by the .
4. Neither the name of the  nor the
   names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
   derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY  ''AS IS'' AND ANY
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL  BE LIABLE FOR ANY
DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
---

Which part of this is retrictive for your freedom (I don't see what
Apple has to do with it)?  Do you intend to:

1) Redistribute source code from which copyright notices have been
stripped?

2) Redistribute binaries, without an accompanying license file?

3) Advertise CDE, or technology built on CDE?

4) Endorse products derived from CDE using the names of the copyright
holders?


What sort of activity are you involved in which the BSD license would
prohibit?  Are you using CDE in some commercial endeavor? (if so, I'd
love to hear about it!)


> MIT has many licenses. Do you mean X11? This is OK. To clear things up please 
> check
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Even this link you provide here says that there's no reason to avoid
programs that have been licensed under original BSD.


> Apache 2.0 is also a good free license for large projects compatible with 
> GPL3.
>
> LGPL is fine. Why change it to a more restrictive for users(!)
> license?

In what way is MIT, or BSD 4 or 3 clause retrictive for a user?
Especially when compared to the LGPL.  The whole idea here is to move
from a semi-restrictive (copyleft) license to a less retrictive
(permissive) license.


-- Matthew R. Trower

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel

Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] Moving to MIT license

[Antonis Tsolomitis]

  
  
On 13/06/2018 05:06 πμ, Matthew R.
  Trower wrote:


  Jon Trulson  writes:


  
Well, I'd like to move to an MIT license, but I haven't heard any
other opinions.

  
  
I'd be in favor of moving to the MIT license at some point (or BSD for
that matter, but MIT is what's on the table).  I'd be more satisfied
with it politically.



  -- Matthew R. Trower



It depends Jon on what do you mean by "MIT" and what others mean by
"BSD".

CDE has been seriously hurt by patents and restrictive licenses, to
almost
extinction, and you know this first hand. 

And what people mean by "LGPL is restrictive" ? Restrictive for who?

I am mainly a user. And for example the "original BSD" is very
restrictive for my freedom
(and very nice for Apple by the way).
And if such a license was to be chosen, I would have to stop using
CDE, and wait 
for someone to fork it and continue with LGPL.

MIT has many licenses. Do you mean X11? This is OK. To clear things
up please check
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Apache 2.0 is also a good free license for large projects compatible
with GPL3.

LGPL is fine. Why change it to a more restrictive for users(!)
license?

Antonis.






  


--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel

Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] Moving to MIT license

[Chase via cdesktopenv-devel]

So then we will not move to MIT anymore? It doesn't matter either way for me, I 
just want to get it out of the way so we can get other things done. If this is 
the case, we should take the MIT stuff off of the wiki.


​Thank you for your time,

-Chase​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 13, 2018 12:06 PM, Jon Trulson  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> On 06/12/2018 05:22 PM, Chase wrote:
> 
> > > I guess the only way to get the ball rolling is to wait for peter to
> > > 
> > > get back then... Shame as our move to MIT could fix the licensing
> > > 
> > > issues when trying to implement a newer version of ast-ksh.
> 
> According to a one-liner from Peter on #cde, we would need to ask TOG.
> 
> Also, according to:
> 
> https://github.com/att/ast/blob/master/LICENSE
> 
> There should be no problem for us using a newer ksh, if I'm reading that
> 
> correctly. (EPL-1.0)
> 
> So for now, let's just forget about any license change. My original
> 
> though WRT MIT, would be to allow commercial CDE's to be able to use our
> 
> code and maybe contribute back (same license as X11) - but this is 2018
> 
> and I doubt any of the remaining ones really care too much about CDE
> 
> anymore.
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> Jon Trulson
> 
> "Fire all weapons and open a hailing frequency for my victory yodle."
> 
> - Zapp Brannigan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> 
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> 
> cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
> 
> cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> 
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel



--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel

Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] Moving to MIT license

[Jon Trulson]

On 06/12/2018 05:22 PM, Chase wrote:
I guess the only way to get the ball rolling is to wait for peter to 
get back then... Shame as our move to MIT could fix the licensing 
issues when trying to implement a newer version of ast-ksh.




According to a one-liner from Peter on #cde, we would need to ask TOG.

Also, according to:

https://github.com/att/ast/blob/master/LICENSE

There should be no problem for us using a newer ksh, if I'm reading that 
correctly. (EPL-1.0)


So for now, let's just forget about any license change.  My original 
though WRT MIT, would be to allow commercial CDE's to be able to use our 
code and maybe contribute back (same license as X11) - but this is 2018 
and I doubt any of the remaining ones really care too much about CDE 
anymore.


--
Jon Trulson

"Fire all weapons and open a hailing frequency for my victory yodle."

  - Zapp Brannigan

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel

Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] Moving to MIT license

[Swift Griggs]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Christopher Turkel wrote:
I see can see the political reasons for the move and software projects 
have moved licenses for worse reasons. I'd like a BSD license of some 
kind, I'd be in favor of it.


MIT, and BSD licenses are great. I won't harp on the ones I don't like as 
this has been a very positive and surprisingly civil conversation *grin*.



FYI, speaking of BSD, I'm obliged to the CDE effort in FreeBSD ports and 
NetBSD pkgsrc (still in WIP *frown* but trying to get it stuffed into the 
mainline pkgsrc).


It's so nice to be able to install CDE *so easily* and have a super-fast 
BSD workstation with a friendly and familar CDE GUI to use.



Thanks,
  Swift

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel

Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] Moving to MIT license

[Christopher Turkel]

I see can see the political reasons for the move and software projects have
moved licenses for worse reasons. I'd like a BSD license of some kind, I'd
be in favor of it.

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:06 PM Matthew R. Trower 
wrote:

> Jon Trulson  writes:
>
> > Well, I'd like to move to an MIT license, but I haven't heard any
> > other opinions.
>
> I'd be in favor of moving to the MIT license at some point (or BSD for
> that matter, but MIT is what's on the table).  I'd be more satisfied
> with it politically.
>
> I'm not sure that we *need* to do it, nor do I suppose I possess any
> controlling interest in the matter, but... it's an opinion, anyway. =)
>
>
> -- Matthew R. Trower
>
>
> --
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
> cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel
>
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel

Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] Moving to MIT license

[Matthew R. Trower]

Jon Trulson  writes:

> Well, I'd like to move to an MIT license, but I haven't heard any
> other opinions.

I'd be in favor of moving to the MIT license at some point (or BSD for
that matter, but MIT is what's on the table).  I'd be more satisfied
with it politically.

I'm not sure that we *need* to do it, nor do I suppose I possess any
controlling interest in the matter, but... it's an opinion, anyway. =)


-- Matthew R. Trower

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel

Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] Moving to MIT license

[Christopher Turkel]

I don't see the point of moving to the MIT license, I'm not against it, I
just don't see the point.

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:32 PM Jon Trulson  wrote:

> On 06/12/2018 05:22 PM, Chase wrote:
> > The headers can be changed with a simple used find and replace.
> >
>
> Which touches a lot of files and can be error prone...
>
> > It wasn't the install database, my bad, was thinking of something
> different, its used in dtinfo, for the library dtmmdb, but the point still
> stands that we do not possess copyright of that code.
> >
>
> Well, what would we do about it then?  Just like with LGPL, we can of
> course distribute it.  So we would then need an MIT license for
> everything expect the berkely stuff, which I assume it BSD licensed?
> Looking at the license, it seems we are fine with it...
>
> The first 2 clauses are just like MIT.  The 3rd clause - we do not
> advertise our use of it, so that one doesn't matter.  4th clause is
> irrelevant for us.  So I'm not seeing the problem...
>
>
> > I guess the only way to get the ball rolling is to wait for peter to get
> back then... Shame as our move to MIT could fix the licensing issues when
> trying to implement a newer version of ast-ksh.
> >
>
> Which also will not happen this release.  I don't know, really what the
> options are for us - I'm not a lawyer.  Peter was the one who chose LGPL
> for CDE along with TOG - though it seemed it didn't really matter to
> them (TOG).  So, may not be a big deal.
>
>
> > We would like to be GPL compatible so that other GPL projects could use
> our code and contribute towards it.
> >
>
> We are currently GPL compatible.  If/when we move to MIT, we will still
> be GPL compatible... What am I missing?
>
> -jon
>
> >
> > ​Thank you for your time,
> >
> > -Chase​
> >
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> >
> > On June 12, 2018 6:05 PM, Jon Trulson  wrote:
> >
> >> ​​
> >>
> >> On 06/11/2018 06:15 PM, Chase via cdesktopenv-devel wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I would like to know, what is holding up our move to the MIT license?
> >>
> >> Well, I'd like to move to an MIT license, but I haven't heard any other
> >>
> >> opinions. I am also not sure what would be involved, or ultimately,
> >>
> >> whether there are any legal issues in doing so... I think Peter would
> >>
> >> have to weigh in on that, and maybe even TOG? Maybe not.
> >>
> >> Then there would be the fun job of swapping out all of the LGPL license
> >>
> >> headers for MIT ones.
> >>
> >> I don't think this is something that will be done quickly, certainly not
> >>
> >> in time for an official release, which I'd like to not put off too long.
> >>
> >>> The only thing I can think of are the btree_berkeley files which we
> have
> >>>
> >>> no rights to, but those are only used for the database for
> installation,
> >>>
> >>> which we could get rid of if we fixed make install, it's all tied
> >>>
> >>> together... How would one go about fixing make install anyways?
> >>
> >> So - You are saying these btree berkely files are used by the install
> >>
> >> database? I wasn't aware of that - I had though it was all shell script
> >>
> >> driven. Where is this database, and why is it a problem?
> >>
> >>> Also, could we relicense the assets to CC-BY-SA-4.0? This ensures GPL
> >>>
> >>> compatibility.
> >>
> >> Let's not re-license anything in this round. If we were MIT, then would
> >>
> >> we even care about GPL compatibility?
> >>
> >> -jon
> >>
> >>> Thank you for your time,
> >>>
> >>> -Chase
> >>>
> >>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> >>>
> >>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> >>>
> >>> cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
> >>>
> >>> cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> >>>
> >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Jon Trulson
> >>
> >> "Fire all weapons and open a hailing frequency for my victory yodle."
> >>
> >> - Zapp Brannigan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> 
> >>
> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> >>
> >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> >>
> >> cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
> >>
> >> cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> >>
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel
> >
>
> --
> Jon Trulson
>
> "Fire all weapons and open a hailing frequency for my victory yodle."
>
>- Zapp Brannigan
>
>
> --
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
> cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel
>

Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] Moving to MIT license

[Jon Trulson]

On 06/12/2018 05:22 PM, Chase wrote:

The headers can be changed with a simple used find and replace.



Which touches a lot of files and can be error prone...


It wasn't the install database, my bad, was thinking of something different, 
its used in dtinfo, for the library dtmmdb, but the point still stands that we 
do not possess copyright of that code.



Well, what would we do about it then?  Just like with LGPL, we can of 
course distribute it.  So we would then need an MIT license for 
everything expect the berkely stuff, which I assume it BSD licensed? 
Looking at the license, it seems we are fine with it...


The first 2 clauses are just like MIT.  The 3rd clause - we do not 
advertise our use of it, so that one doesn't matter.  4th clause is 
irrelevant for us.  So I'm not seeing the problem...




I guess the only way to get the ball rolling is to wait for peter to get back 
then... Shame as our move to MIT could fix the licensing issues when trying to 
implement a newer version of ast-ksh.



Which also will not happen this release.  I don't know, really what the 
options are for us - I'm not a lawyer.  Peter was the one who chose LGPL 
for CDE along with TOG - though it seemed it didn't really matter to 
them (TOG).  So, may not be a big deal.




We would like to be GPL compatible so that other GPL projects could use our 
code and contribute towards it.



We are currently GPL compatible.  If/when we move to MIT, we will still 
be GPL compatible... What am I missing?


-jon



​Thank you for your time,

-Chase​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 12, 2018 6:05 PM, Jon Trulson  wrote:


​​

On 06/11/2018 06:15 PM, Chase via cdesktopenv-devel wrote:


Hi all,

I would like to know, what is holding up our move to the MIT license?


Well, I'd like to move to an MIT license, but I haven't heard any other

opinions. I am also not sure what would be involved, or ultimately,

whether there are any legal issues in doing so... I think Peter would

have to weigh in on that, and maybe even TOG? Maybe not.

Then there would be the fun job of swapping out all of the LGPL license

headers for MIT ones.

I don't think this is something that will be done quickly, certainly not

in time for an official release, which I'd like to not put off too long.


The only thing I can think of are the btree_berkeley files which we have

no rights to, but those are only used for the database for installation,

which we could get rid of if we fixed make install, it's all tied

together... How would one go about fixing make install anyways?


So - You are saying these btree berkely files are used by the install

database? I wasn't aware of that - I had though it was all shell script

driven. Where is this database, and why is it a problem?


Also, could we relicense the assets to CC-BY-SA-4.0? This ensures GPL

compatibility.


Let's not re-license anything in this round. If we were MIT, then would

we even care about GPL compatibility?

-jon


Thank you for your time,

-Chase

Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most

engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot

cdesktopenv-devel mailing list

cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel


--

Jon Trulson

"Fire all weapons and open a hailing frequency for my victory yodle."

- Zapp Brannigan




Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most

engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot

cdesktopenv-devel mailing list

cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel




--
Jon Trulson

"Fire all weapons and open a hailing frequency for my victory yodle."

  - Zapp Brannigan

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel

Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] Moving to MIT license

[Jon Trulson]

On 06/11/2018 06:15 PM, Chase via cdesktopenv-devel wrote:

Hi all,
I would like to know, what is holding up our move to the MIT license? 


Well, I'd like to move to an MIT license, but I haven't heard any other 
opinions.  I am also not sure what would be involved, or ultimately, 
whether there are any legal issues in doing so...  I think Peter would 
have to weigh in on that, and maybe even TOG?  Maybe not.


Then there would be the fun job of swapping out all of the LGPL license 
headers for MIT ones.


I don't think this is something that will be done quickly, certainly not 
in time for an official release, which I'd like to not put off too long.


The only thing I can think of are the btree_berkeley files which we have 
no rights to, but those are only used for the database for installation, 
which we could get rid of if we fixed make install, it's all tied 
together... How would one go about fixing make install anyways?




So - You are saying these btree berkely files are used by the install 
database?  I wasn't aware of that - I had though it was all shell script 
driven.  Where is this database, and why is it a problem?


Also, could we relicense the assets to CC-BY-SA-4.0? This ensures GPL 
compatibility.




Let's not re-license anything in this round.  If we were MIT, then would 
we even care about GPL compatibility?


-jon


Thank you for your time,
-Chase




--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot



___
cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel



--
Jon Trulson

"Fire all weapons and open a hailing frequency for my victory yodle."

  - Zapp Brannigan

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel