Re: [License-discuss] Making the PHP FAQ generic
Ben Reser writes: >I've tried to achieve that. We may need to noodle on it a bit more to >get something we all agree on. I've applied the patch, with only minor tweaks, though we're free to noodle more if we want. Note that where you link to language-specific licenses, I adjusted one link to point to our canonical SPDX-name URL for that licenses instead of our older, non-canonical URL. I also used an outer div wrapper element, instead of an anchor, and added a comment about the URL compatibility shim. (Outer div, not inner, because that way when you hover over the text to see the ID, you get the canonical one -- the inner one.) Thanks, Ben! http://opensource.org/faq#language-vs-license -K ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Making the PHP FAQ generic
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Karl Fogel wrote: > Preserving the "php-code" element id is good, for compatibility, but we > should really create a new id as the canonical one to use from the table > of contents. How about "language-vs-license" ? Done. > Also, it might good to talk about implementations of languages being > open source, rather than the languages themselves. It's a bit pedantic, > but I think it can be worded naturally, and it would emphasize the > conceptual cut one has to make to really understand the answer. If you > compile your C program with Borland's C compiler, that doesn't make your > program closed-source; by the same token, if you run your Python program > on the most widely-used implementation of Python, which is open source, > that doesn't make your code open source by default. I've tried to do this without using your example since I think as soon as you start talking about a compiled language you start running into other potential issues as the discussion here has shown. I don't really think these issues are legit, but I don't think the OSI can answer that bit definitively. > People who ask that question may think they're asking about the > language, but they're really asking about the particular language > implementation. This should be made clear to them in the answer. I've tried to achieve that. We may need to noodle on it a bit more to get something we all agree on. On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Luis Villa wrote: > Note that these pages are generated by Drupal, not static HTML, so the > patch isn't necessary (or rather, can't be applied). If you have a few > minutes to incorporate Karl's suggestions, just send plain text of the > next revision and one of us will put it into the HTML. Thanks! I realized that, I figured a unified diff would be helpful in seeing what I did. I've attached a new version of the patch. Below is the HTML directly for just the FAQ entry. The index will of course need to be changed. [[[ IsOpen Source simply because it's written in ? No. While languages like PHP, Perl or Python have implementations that are licensed under Open Source licenses that doesn't turn all code written in these languages or run under such implementations into Open Source. The code written in such languages or run under such implementations needs to be licensed under an approved Open Source license in order to be Open Source. ]]] opensource-org-faq.html.patch Description: Binary data ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Making the PHP FAQ generic
My apologies! Learn something new every day. I will confer offline about how in the heck you actually *apply* the patch :) On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Karl Fogel wrote: > Luis Villa writes: >>Note that these pages are generated by Drupal, not static HTML, so the >>patch isn't necessary (or rather, can't be applied). If you have a few >>minutes to incorporate Karl's suggestions, just send plain text of the >>next revision and one of us will put it into the HTML. Thanks! > > Well, actually, a patch done the way Ben did it *is* useful. The FAQ > content on this page is formatted in very clean HTML (using Drupal's > "raw HTML" editing mode), because the FAQ has special maintenance needs > that other pages don't have -- e.g., anchor IDs on the questions. > > However, that also makes the FAQ portion of the page susceptible to > being patched in the way that Ben did (he actually asked me first in > IRC, and I explained the above to him). > > Summary: the FAQ page is special; let's go shopping. > > -Karl > >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Richard Fontana [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 11:13 AM >>> To: Karl Fogel; [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Making the PHP FAQ generic >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 01:07:23PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote: >>>> Also, it might good to talk about implementations of languages being >>>> open source, rather than the languages themselves. It's a bit >>>> pedantic, but I think it can be worded naturally, and it would >>>> emphasize the conceptual cut one has to make to really understand the >>>> answer. If you compile your C program with Borland's C compiler, that >>>> doesn't make your program closed-source; by the same token, if you run >>>> your Python program on the most widely-used implementation of Python, >>>> which is open source, that doesn't make your code open source by default. >>>> >>>> People who ask that question may think they're asking about the >>>> language, but they're really asking about the particular language >>>> implementation. This should be made clear to them in the answer. >>> >>> +1. I encounter a surprising amount of confusion about this point. >>> >>> - Richard >>> >>> ___ >>> License-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >>> >>> ___ >>> License-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >>___ >>License-discuss mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Making the PHP FAQ generic
Luis is completely right that this question is independent of the FAQ entry being discussed in this thread. Could we please make it a new thread if we're going to discuss it (but also not discuss it unless we're going to write a FAQ entry about it, which I suggest we not do because it's not actually frequently asked of OSI in my experience)? -Karl Chuck Swiger writes: >On Dec 7, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: >> Are restrictions on the *use* or *results* of proprietary compilers >> consistent with generating open source programs in that language? > >No. However, compilation by itself is a mechanical task which performs no >creative transformation. > >> Can the copying of binary code into an executable by the compiler >> itself affect the >> license on that executable? > >Sure. If you link an executable against Oracle's client libraries to talk to >their database, that executable includes proprietary code which would need to >be appropriately licensed. > >> I have heard people ask if running a GPL compiler that includes GPL >> libraries into a resulting program creates a GPL obligation for the >> resulting program. I hope not! > >The GPL provides an exception for their compiler runtime library which >permits this: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html > >Most or almost all other compilers also explicitly permit the use of >the associated >compiler runtime libraries with software under arbitrary licenses. >End-users rarely >encounter this because most platforms already ship with working versions of the >compiler runtime and standard C/C++ libraries, and programs use >dynamic linking to pull >those in rather than needing to statically link them into the executable. [1] > >Regards, ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Making the PHP FAQ generic
Luis Villa writes: >Note that these pages are generated by Drupal, not static HTML, so the >patch isn't necessary (or rather, can't be applied). If you have a few >minutes to incorporate Karl's suggestions, just send plain text of the >next revision and one of us will put it into the HTML. Thanks! Well, actually, a patch done the way Ben did it *is* useful. The FAQ content on this page is formatted in very clean HTML (using Drupal's "raw HTML" editing mode), because the FAQ has special maintenance needs that other pages don't have -- e.g., anchor IDs on the questions. However, that also makes the FAQ portion of the page susceptible to being patched in the way that Ben did (he actually asked me first in IRC, and I explained the above to him). Summary: the FAQ page is special; let's go shopping. -Karl >> -Original Message- >> From: Richard Fontana [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 11:13 AM >> To: Karl Fogel; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Making the PHP FAQ generic >> >> On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 01:07:23PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote: >>> Also, it might good to talk about implementations of languages being >>> open source, rather than the languages themselves. It's a bit >>> pedantic, but I think it can be worded naturally, and it would >>> emphasize the conceptual cut one has to make to really understand the >>> answer. If you compile your C program with Borland's C compiler, that >>> doesn't make your program closed-source; by the same token, if you run >>> your Python program on the most widely-used implementation of Python, >>> which is open source, that doesn't make your code open source by default. >>> >>> People who ask that question may think they're asking about the >>> language, but they're really asking about the particular language >>> implementation. This should be made clear to them in the answer. >> >> +1. I encounter a surprising amount of confusion about this point. >> >> - Richard >> >> ___ >> License-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >> >> ___ >> License-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >___ >License-discuss mailing list >[email protected] >http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Making the PHP FAQ generic
On Dec 7, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Are restrictions on the *use* or *results* of proprietary compilers > consistent with generating open source programs in that language? No. However, compilation by itself is a mechanical task which performs no creative transformation. > Can the copying of binary code into an executable by the compiler itself > affect the > license on that executable? Sure. If you link an executable against Oracle's client libraries to talk to their database, that executable includes proprietary code which would need to be appropriately licensed. > I have heard people ask if running a GPL compiler that includes GPL > libraries into a resulting program creates a GPL obligation for the > resulting program. I hope not! The GPL provides an exception for their compiler runtime library which permits this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html Most or almost all other compilers also explicitly permit the use of the associated compiler runtime libraries with software under arbitrary licenses. End-users rarely encounter this because most platforms already ship with working versions of the compiler runtime and standard C/C++ libraries, and programs use dynamic linking to pull those in rather than needing to statically link them into the executable. [1] Regards, -- -Chuck [1]: Folks using Windows probably encounter more dialogs about installing a flavor of the "Microsoft Visual C/C++ redistributable libraries" than all other platforms combined. ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Making the PHP FAQ generic
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Are restrictions on the *use* or *results* of proprietary compilers > consistent with generating open source programs in that language? Can the > copying of binary code into an executable by the compiler itself affect the > license on that executable? > > I have heard people ask if running a GPL compiler that includes GPL > libraries into a resulting program creates a GPL obligation for the > resulting program. I hope not! I'd prefer to keep that issue out of this FAQ entry, both because (1) as far as I know, it is actually only an issue for gcc and (2) the answer is really independent of whether or not this is done by the compiler; i.e., the FSF's reasons for believing a gcc exception is needed are the same reasons they think GPL is applicable to any library, and Larry's reasons for believing no obligation is created by the compiler scenario are the same as for other libraries. Thanks for putting this together, Ben! I agree with all of Karl's comments/suggestions. Note that these pages are generated by Drupal, not static HTML, so the patch isn't necessary (or rather, can't be applied). If you have a few minutes to incorporate Karl's suggestions, just send plain text of the next revision and one of us will put it into the HTML. Thanks! Luis > -Original Message- > From: Richard Fontana [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 11:13 AM > To: Karl Fogel; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Making the PHP FAQ generic > > On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 01:07:23PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote: >> Also, it might good to talk about implementations of languages being >> open source, rather than the languages themselves. It's a bit >> pedantic, but I think it can be worded naturally, and it would >> emphasize the conceptual cut one has to make to really understand the >> answer. If you compile your C program with Borland's C compiler, that >> doesn't make your program closed-source; by the same token, if you run >> your Python program on the most widely-used implementation of Python, >> which is open source, that doesn't make your code open source by default. >> >> People who ask that question may think they're asking about the >> language, but they're really asking about the particular language >> implementation. This should be made clear to them in the answer. > > +1. I encounter a surprising amount of confusion about this point. > > - Richard > > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Making the PHP FAQ generic
Are restrictions on the *use* or *results* of proprietary compilers consistent with generating open source programs in that language? Can the copying of binary code into an executable by the compiler itself affect the license on that executable? I have heard people ask if running a GPL compiler that includes GPL libraries into a resulting program creates a GPL obligation for the resulting program. I hope not! /Larry -Original Message- From: Richard Fontana [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 11:13 AM To: Karl Fogel; [email protected] Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Making the PHP FAQ generic On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 01:07:23PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote: > Also, it might good to talk about implementations of languages being > open source, rather than the languages themselves. It's a bit > pedantic, but I think it can be worded naturally, and it would > emphasize the conceptual cut one has to make to really understand the > answer. If you compile your C program with Borland's C compiler, that > doesn't make your program closed-source; by the same token, if you run > your Python program on the most widely-used implementation of Python, > which is open source, that doesn't make your code open source by default. > > People who ask that question may think they're asking about the > language, but they're really asking about the particular language > implementation. This should be made clear to them in the answer. +1. I encounter a surprising amount of confusion about this point. - Richard ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Making the PHP FAQ generic
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 01:07:23PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote: > Also, it might good to talk about implementations of languages being > open source, rather than the languages themselves. It's a bit pedantic, > but I think it can be worded naturally, and it would emphasize the > conceptual cut one has to make to really understand the answer. If you > compile your C program with Borland's C compiler, that doesn't make your > program closed-source; by the same token, if you run your Python program > on the most widely-used implementation of Python, which is open source, > that doesn't make your code open source by default. > > People who ask that question may think they're asking about the > language, but they're really asking about the particular language > implementation. This should be made clear to them in the answer. +1. I encounter a surprising amount of confusion about this point. - Richard ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Making the PHP FAQ generic
Ben Reser writes: >Attached is a patch that makes the PHP FAQ question generic. Thank you for doing this, Ben. A couple of suggestions: Preserving the "php-code" element id is good, for compatibility, but we should really create a new id as the canonical one to use from the table of contents. How about "language-vs-license" ? Also, it might good to talk about implementations of languages being open source, rather than the languages themselves. It's a bit pedantic, but I think it can be worded naturally, and it would emphasize the conceptual cut one has to make to really understand the answer. If you compile your C program with Borland's C compiler, that doesn't make your program closed-source; by the same token, if you run your Python program on the most widely-used implementation of Python, which is open source, that doesn't make your code open source by default. People who ask that question may think they're asking about the language, but they're really asking about the particular language implementation. This should be made clear to them in the answer. -Karl ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
