I just want to make it short.
I was used to think that if I have to release a library to replace a
non-free one, I will make them LGPL. Otherwise, I will make the work
GPL. Now, after all this discussion, I think we need a more restrictive
one, kind of intermediate between the GPL and LGPL, someth
On Fri, Mar 26, 1999 at 09:34:55PM +0100, Milan Zamazal wrote:
> DB> GPL *does* restrict your rights. If you found a kewl foobar
> DB> program but wanted to put the xforms front end to it, you can't.
> DB> Well, you can, but then you can't distribute it to anyone,
> DB> anywhere.
On Sun, Mar 28, 1999 at 01:54:00PM -0500, Jonathan P Tomer wrote:
> * the problem: the most popular available copyleft licence around has severe
> compatibility issues, even with other free software
What's a problem for you is a desired effect for me (and vice versa).
> * my solution: create a
> "DB" == Darren Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DB> GPL *does* restrict your rights. If you found a kewl foobar
DB> program but wanted to put the xforms front end to it, you can't.
DB> Well, you can, but then you can't distribute it to anyone,
DB> anywhere. Your right to
On Sat, Mar 27, 1999 at 07:19:41PM +, James Troup wrote:
> > I think a very large number of people place software under the GPL
> > because they believe it's the standard license for Free Software and
> > that they are told the other licenses are "bad" (and in some cases I
> > would agree) and
> It is clause 3 in ash's license that creates incompatibility with the GPL.
i was of the opinion that it's clause 4 ("all advertisements must include")
rather than clause 3 ("you may not refer to ... in advertisements) that
causes problems? at least according to rms' opinion, as expressed on
www.
Darren O. Benham writes:
> I've been thinking on how I could do that with my code and I'm coming up
> blank. What would the wording be that will let me license "foobar" under
> my own, prefered, license *AND* the GPL?
The brute force way is to publish foobar twice, once under each license.
This i
On Fri, Mar 26, 1999 at 04:00:58AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> [stuff deleted]
>
> The GPL is not the only free license there is. If you have a problem
> with that, you have a problem with the DFSG. There are pieces of
> software the GPL is not compatible with SITTING IN MAIN. Yes, TRULY FRE
On Sun, Mar 28, 1999 at 02:16:36PM -0800, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> > The Author who wants to put his changes under a very free license (assuming
> > incompatible with GPL) thinks this is not a disservice to the Free Software
> > community. But then, he does not colicense it under the GPL. Why? You
Jonathan P Tomer writes:
> my solution: create a license that shares the transitive property of the
> gpl for modifications, but that has a clause like the lgpl's allowing
> other programs to link with it *so long as they are covered by a dfsg
> compliant licence*.
The Debian Free Software Guideli
> The Author who wants to put his changes under a very free license (assuming
> incompatible with GPL) thinks this is not a disservice to the Free Software
> community. But then, he does not colicense it under the GPL. Why? You don't
> give me a good reason for it ("they just don't want to" is no r
Jonathan,
I understood your intent.
It's laudable. In fact, I was planning myself to write a license very
like that which you describe.
However, I question that it's necessary.
IMO, it would be a good thing if all free software were GPLed. I believe
in copyleft.
Now, I respect other authors'
hm, perhaps five pages is a bit long. i'll try to make this one a bit more
clear. ;)
* the problem: the most popular available copyleft licence around has severe
compatibility issues, even with other free software (more silly arguments
on the exact extent of this is not really productive; we k
> > [...] I am almost frightened by
> > the number of people who have never READ the GPL and yet they
> > release code under it...
>
> How many such people do you know?
at least one; i know that before i read the gpl (which was, coincidentally,
when i started learning perl and discovered that it
Marcus Brinkmann writes:
> The Author who wants to put his changes under a very free license
> (assuming incompatible with GPL) thinks this is not a disservice to the
> Free Software community. But then, he does not colicense it under the
> GPL. Why?
Because he doesn't know he can. Most hackers s
Jonathan P Tomer quotes without attribution:
> As I'm sure you know, it's perfectly legal to combine GPL and X and BSD
> code into the same program.
And writes:
> yes, but one has to change the license of the final work...
What gave you that idea?
> ...in ways that authors are sometimes unwilli
On Sat, Mar 27, 1999 at 04:34:10PM -0500, Jonathan P Tomer wrote:
> you seem to be missing my point: those licenses are considered free. other
> licenses have compatibility issues which cause certain good things not to
> happen. in my opinion, this is a unilaterally bad thing. i think that anyone
>
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think a very large number of people place software under the GPL
> because they believe it's the standard license for Free Software and
> that they are told the other licenses are "bad" (and in some cases I
> would agree) and that the GPL is good. I a
> > As I'm sure you know, it's perfectly legal to combine GPL and X and BSD
> > code into the same program.
Jonathan P Tomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yes, but one has to change the license of the final work in ways that
> authors are sometimes unwilling and/or unable (ie the original author
>
> As I'm sure you know, it's perfectly legal to combine GPL and X and BSD
> code into the same program.
yes, but one has to change the license of the final work in ways that
authors are sometimes unwilling and/or unable (ie the original author does
not exist/cannot be found) to do, for one reason
On Sat, 27 Mar 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> > the simple fact of the matter is, by some trick of wording,
> > intentional or not, the "copyleft" or "viral" (depending on the
> > author of the mail ;p) sections of the gpl offer as a reasonable
> > interpretation (by reasonable i mean that it would hav
Jonathan P Tomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> in a pathetic attempt to reign this flamewar in a bit, i'm going to offer
> a few (ok, realliy just one, but it's big ;p) simple, factual objections to
> the gpl, which knightbrd and i have both made at least twice, although the
> arguments have occasio
> This is not quite accurate. Those licenses are not restrictive enough in a
> certain sense.
>
> See, what you consider to be a problem can be interpretated as an advantage.
> If somebody writes Free Software, and wants to make absolutely sure that it
> stays free, he can use the GPL. This way, a
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 27, 1999 at 02:53:10PM -0500, Jonathan P Tomer wrote:
> cast against rms/esr/whoever. the simple fact of the matter is, by some
> trick of wording, intentional or not, the "copyleft" or "viral" [...]
> sections of the gpl offer as a reasonable
> interpretation [...]
> that no non-g
in a pathetic attempt to reign this flamewar in a bit, i'm going to offer
a few (ok, realliy just one, but it's big ;p) simple, factual objections to
the gpl, which knightbrd and i have both made at least twice, although the
arguments have occasionally been lost in the midst of a sea of aspersions
On Fri, Mar 26, 1999 at 04:00:58AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> Don't even try to say that one bad example invalidates the argument. The
> BSD license on ash is incompatible with libreadline's GPL---is ash
> non-free? Not according to the DFSG. And yes, I do directly blame the
> GPL for this
Hello,
John has answered to your reply a lot better than I probably cxan do (thanks
John), but here are some remarks from me, too.
On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 10:13:32AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 04:03:27PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> >
> > If you want to prevent lic
On Fri, Mar 26, 1999 at 07:58:17PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > (We just saw an example of what to fear with BIND: its BSD license
> > > allowed modifications under more restrictive licensing conditions,
> > > so the upstream maintainers are now putting out the new version
> > > under a non-
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 09:26:00PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > (We just saw an example of what to fear with BIND: its BSD license
> > allowed modifications under more restrictive licensing conditions,
> > so the upstream maintainers are now putting
On Fri, Mar 26, 1999 at 06:57:47PM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > > Cites, please. I have never seen him propose this, and I have seen
> > > none of these steps. You are misrepresenting him.
> >
> > It was a mistake to bring this up here. My apologies, the cites would
> > almost exclusively
Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > He has already proposed on more than one occasion that Debian get rid of
> > > the nasty (in his mind) point on our social contract to support people
> > > who use non-free software and has taken steps to cause us to all but
> > > delete the contrib and non-free portions
On Fri, Mar 26, 1999 at 04:00:58AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 01:44:42PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > That is your opinion (and the opinion of most of us) but it's still not
> > > the
> > > "fact" you make it out to be. GPL *does* restrict your rights. If you
> > >
On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 01:44:42PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > That is your opinion (and the opinion of most of us) but it's still not the
> > "fact" you make it out to be. GPL *does* restrict your rights. If you
> > found a kewl foobar program but wanted to put the xforms front end to it,
> >
On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 07:39:19PM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Yet he is remarkably successful in all this forcing and cramming,
> particularly given his lack of means of coercion. I think it is
> more likely that there is actually a large group of people who
> agree with him. How do you thi
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It may protect your rights, but it also keeps your code from being useful
> as a shared lib for example to other software which is Free Software but
> is not GPL. It discriminates against software, even Free Software. I
> see this as a bad thing. You di
On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 01:44:42PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > That is your opinion (and the opinion of most of us) but it's still not the
> > "fact" you make it out to be. GPL *does* restrict your rights. If you
> > found a kewl foobar program but wanted to put the xforms front end to it,
> >
On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 12:55:12PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Ahh, you mean use a license that grants me NO PROTECTION AT ALL or use a
> > license that grants me lots of protection, but prevents other people from
> > using it unless they agree with RMS' ideals? I don't agree with RMS'
> > idea
Darren Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The GPL does not restrict my rights. It protects my rights, and the
> > rights of everyone else, by preventing people from being able to steal
> > the code and release it in binary-only form. This is an excellent
> > thing, and highlights one seriou
On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 12:55:12PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I'm sorry, but your understanding is severely lacking or else you do
> not agree with the free software premise that Debian is based upon, in
> which case I would have to question why you are a Debian developer at
> all.
>
> The GPL
> > Oh, come back from your high horse and land on mother earth again, will ya?
> >
> > If you want to prevent license fragmentation, use the GPL. if you want to
> > suck in all dfsg free software, use X license.
>
> Ahh, you mean use a license that grants me NO PROTECTION AT ALL or use a
> licen
Joseph Carter wrote:
> Ahh, you mean use a license that grants me NO PROTECTION AT ALL or use a
> license that grants me lots of protection, but prevents other people from
> using it unless they agree with RMS' ideals? I don't agree with RMS'
> ideals. RMS' ideals involve taking away the choice t
On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 04:03:27PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > RMS has also argued against GPL+extra permissions. RMS wants GPL, only
> > GPL, and never anything else. Because of the anti-social nature of the
> > GPL many things are being written for the LGPL and RMS recently made a
> > pl
On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 12:30:55AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> RMS has also argued against GPL+extra permissions. RMS wants GPL, only
> GPL, and never anything else. Because of the anti-social nature of the
> GPL many things are being written for the LGPL and RMS recently made a
> plea to pe
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Either the GPL needs to change (VERY unlikely), the FSF needs to
> publish a new license which is more friendly to things which are Free
> Software but not GPL, or someone else needs to do it and TRY to get
> people to use it.
>
> Somehow all of these opti
On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 09:26:00PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I would sooner create YAL that had the GPL's terms matched
> > with the exception of license compatibility than use a license I KNEW was
> > going to limit where others could or could not use my code for the
> > purposes of Free S
/*
* Discussion returned to -legal where it belongs, please don't move
* -it to devel to talk about licenses, we have enough traffic there
* already
*/
On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 04:08:03PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> > > I would sooner create YAL that had the GPL's terms m
On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 10:15:38AM -0500, Jonathan P Tomer wrote:
> > correct; the gpl doesn't allow itself to be mixed with any licenses of
> > 'lesser blood'. i guess that would make rms feel dirty or
> > something. ;)
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This really (I mean _REALLY_) turn
On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 01:32:10PM -0500, Jonathan P Tomer wrote:
> > It's a big problem because I see it? =p
>
> no... it was a big problem before, but people may remember things when you
> say them (for instance, i've made the exact same rant as yours this month.
> i proposed the same solution
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would sooner create YAL that had the GPL's terms matched
> with the exception of license compatibility than use a license I KNEW was
> going to limit where others could or could not use my code for the
> purposes of Free Software. If my code is being u
> It's a big problem because I see it? =p
no... it was a big problem before, but people may remember things when you
say them (for instance, i've made the exact same rant as yours this month.
i proposed the same solution to the license problem. raise your hand if you
remember that...)
it also me
On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 11:27:09AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> > If people want to know why I consider the "GPL virus" a bad thing, there
> > is the answer. If everything that links with the GPL _MUST BE_ 100% GPL,
>
> Everything that links with the GPL does not have to be GPL.
So I would think.
On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 10:15:38AM -0500, Jonathan P Tomer wrote:
> > The bigger issue is then are we permitted to mix GPL and _MOST
> > ANYTHING ELSE_ at all? Based on the email from RMS in December, no
> > we aren't.
>
> correct; the gpl doesn't allow itself to be mixed with any licenses of
> '
Jonathan quotes someone whose name has been lost in the mists of time:
> If people want to know why I consider the "GPL virus" a bad thing, there
> is the answer. If everything that links with the GPL _MUST BE_ 100% GPL,
Everything that links with the GPL does not have to be GPL.
> then there ar
> The bigger issue is then are we permitted to mix GPL and _MOST
> ANYTHING ELSE_ at all? Based on the email from RMS in December, no
> we aren't.
correct; the gpl doesn't allow itself to be mixed with any licenses of
'lesser blood'. i guess that would make rms feel dirty or
something. ;)
> If p
On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 11:06:26PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 04:17:06PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > It was long enough ago that providing a copy may be somewhat difficult.
> > > It's been a few months. I'll see if I can find it though.
> > If it's been that long, I
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the letter RMS told me that even if the terms of the GPL and the QPL
> were identical for all practical purposes, the QPL is not the GPL and as
> a result the QPL may only be compatible with the GPL if it allows the
> work to be sublicensed under the GP
On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 04:17:06PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > It was long enough ago that providing a copy may be somewhat difficult.
> > It's been a few months. I'll see if I can find it though.
>
> If it's been that long, I think there's a reasonable chance you're
> remembering a mis-interp
> > > Not according to an email I got from RMS about compatibility
> > > between the GPL and other licenses.
On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 03:26:52AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Then again, maybe that's not what he said. Care to re-post the
> > email?
On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 02:01:54AM -0800, Joseph
On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 03:26:52AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Not according to an email I got from RMS about compatibility between the
> > GPL and other licenses.
>
> Then again, maybe that's not what he said. Care to re-post the
> email?
It was long enough ago that providing a copy may be so
Jonathan P Tomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You mean like the FreeBSD vs. the NetBSD camps?
>
> for one;
Er.. can you tell me how the GPL is at fault for the split between
the FreeBSD and the NetBSD camps?
> or if you or were to take some code under npl or qpl and modify it,
> and want to r
> No, it says that the work as a whole must be licensed [to ... ] under
> the >>TERMS<< of the gpl.
>
> The rights granted in the GPL have to be available to everyone, but
> if another license grants those terms that's fine.
>
> Then again, this distinction might not matter to you.
hm. now that
> > Second: even the GPL doesn't force you to put the derived work under
> > the GPL -- except for the part which is already GPL, the rest of it
> > could be placed under the BSD license.
Jonathan P Tomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> however the gpl does clearly say that means that the work as a
>
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not according to an email I got from RMS about compatibility between the
> GPL and other licenses.
Then again, maybe that's not what he said. Care to re-post the
email?
--
Raul
On Sat, Mar 13, 1999 at 09:45:45PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> > however it -does- seem dfsg-free to me
>
> I hadn't noticed than anyone was saying that it wasn't.
Raul "oversimplified" the intent of a paragraph causing Wichert to, based
on the IMO gross inaccuracy of Raul's take on the license t
On Sat, Mar 13, 1999 at 09:27:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > so i think (and i may propose to the gnu project one of these days)
> > that a proper copyleft should allow the licensee to sublicense
> > the product under any license that preserves the rights and
> > restrictions that are important
Jonathan P Tomer writes:
> it's not gpl compatible in that you can't take a work that's partially
> qpl and partially gpl and license it under either one.
It's not GPL compatible in that it adds additional restrictions.
> such is the nature of the infective copyleft.
Such is the nature of paragr
> Er..
>
> First: this contradicts your statement about BSD software being relicensable.
sorry, i should have said "some licenses"; namely most existing
copylefts.
> Second: even the GPL doesn't force you to put the derived work under the
> GPL -- except for the part which is already GPL, the r
Joseph Carter wrote:
> Worth noting is that anyone who is going to actually be noticed doing
> free-but-non-free-because-distribution-is-in-house-only is going to be
> big enough that they can afford a Professional license and in that case
> they can also write it off as overhead costs, in which ca
Jonathan P Tomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it's not gpl compatible in that you can't take a work that's partially
> qpl and partially gpl and license it under either one. such is the
> nature of the infective copyleft.
It's as much the nature of the QPL as it is the nature of the GPL.
> (see b
> I don't believe that it is.
it's not gpl compatible in that you can't take a work that's partially
qpl and partially gpl and license it under either one. such is the
nature of the infective copyleft. (see below for a short rant on this
subject). however it -does- seem dfsg-free to me (because yo
Marcus writes:
> Okay, this was it. I am in doubt that this is GPL compatible, but if
> someone thinks he sees why it is, I am happy to learn.
I don't believe that it is.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Sorry for following up on my own message:
On Sat, Mar 13, 1999 at 02:58:22PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> What about the other issue, that the original copyright holder (in case of
> Qt that's Troll Tech) can relicense the modifications (I hope I didn't mess
> this up, it's from memory). This
On Fri, Mar 12, 1999 at 03:24:04PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 1999 at 10:12:17PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > > At the moment, there's still a problem where [oversimplified:] the QPL
> > > requires that whenever you distribute the program you give Troll a copy.
> >
> > Tha
Previously Raul Miller wrote:
> > At the moment, there's still a problem where [oversimplified:] the
> > QPL requires that whenever you distribute the program you give Troll
> > a copy.
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That makes it non-free.. *sigh*. Is this the only issue that makes
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oversimplified doesn't BEGIN to describe it.
Yes, it does.
--
Raul
On Fri, Mar 12, 1999 at 10:12:17PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > At the moment, there's still a problem where [oversimplified:] the QPL
> > requires that whenever you distribute the program you give Troll a copy.
>
> That makes it non-free.. *sigh*. Is this the only issue that makes these
> t
Previously Raul Miller wrote:
> At the moment, there's still a problem where [oversimplified:] the QPL
> requires that whenever you distribute the program you give Troll a copy.
That makes it non-free.. *sigh*. Is this the only issue that makes these
two licenses incompatible?
Wichert.
--
=
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Has anyone looked at the final QPL yet? I'm curious if it is GPL
> > compatible now, and if not exactly why not.
At the moment, there's still a problem where [oversimplified:] the QPL
requires that whenever you distribute the program you give Troll a
Montreal Fri Mar 12 11:35:53 1999
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Has anyone looked at the final QPL yet? I'm curious if it is GPL
> compatible now, and if not exactly why not.
The GPL requires you to distribute a derivative product under the
terms of the GPL. QPL will not let y
79 matches
Mail list logo
