Subject: "Licences Wars"

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 01:33:34 +0200

Hi all!

(for linux-elitists : 
I'm sorry about my last post about the KDE 4 rant. I thought it was 
acceptable, but it turned out to violate this list's etiquette. This post is 
about something I haven't published (yet, though I intend to), and will 
contain my full thoughts in an attempt to get more input.
)

Software licences - what a flamatory topic. My post is going to be 
titled "Licences War" (as a tribute to "Languages Wars" -  
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/09/01.html ), and will cover my 
opinion regarding it. The first part will explain the concepts and 
differences in ideology behind strong-copyleft-licences ("viral" ones like 
the GPL or the SleepyCat Licence), public-domain, non-copyleft licences such 
as BSDL, MITL, Apache, etc. and soft-copyleft licences in between (LGPL, the 
Artistic Licence, MPL, etc.). I'm not going to cover this explanation here, 
but I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft and to other 
resources on the wikipedia.

Now. The first thing I'll mention is that it is not entirely agreed upon which 
licences are free/open-source and which are not:

The original Artistic Licence (authored by Larry Wall for dual-licensing perl) 
is:

* considered non-free (and non-GPL-compatible) by the FSF

* considered free by Debian.

* considered non-free by RedHat.

* considered free by Mandriva.

* considered open-source by the OSI - 
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0.php

* was considered a contract in a certain judgement:

http://lwn.net/Articles/246695/

(Who are you going to believe?)

The Artistic Licence was later clarified into the Clarified Artistic Licence 
which are the minimum changes to make it "free" and GPL-compatible, and now 
has a new and improved version - Artistic 2.0, which is considered free and 
GPL-compatible by everybody, and is generally preferable for newer projects.

Moreover, the Apache 2.0 Licence was specifically phrased to be 
GPL-compatible, and is considered GPL compatible by the Apache Software 
Foundation, but the FSF concluded it was not compatible with the GPLv2 
(although it is with the GPLv3 that was published afterwards). Their legal 
teams still disagree on that matter. So who are you going to believe?

The Creative Commons Attribution (CC-by) and Attribution-ShareAlike Licences 
(CC-by-sa) are considered free (but not GPL-compatible) by the FSF (see 
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#OtherLicenses ), while the 
Debian legal team concluded that they were not free.[1]

{{{{{{
[1] - I should note that I have issues with the entire Debian policy of 
including only free-as-in-speech material in their distribution, regardless 
of its type. I don't feel that non-software-content should abide by the same 
rules as software, and even RMS said that computer games are morally allowed 
to have non-free graphics, sound, and plots as long as their engines are 
free:

http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/09/191257

So Debian are trying to be holier than the pope here and try to coerce 
everybody into abiding by irrational rules.

But this is besides the point of whether they are free or not.
}}}}}}

Another curious licence is the Affero GPL - 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License - which aims to 
close the "Application Service Provider Loophole". What it means is that if I 
install an AGPLed program on a web-server and modify it then I must make my 
modifications public. However, the Free Software Definition (see 
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ), says that I must have "The 
freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.". As a 
result, I personally don't consider the AGPL as free (because I may wish to 
run it on my web-server and modify it), but the FSF thinks otherwise. We have 
enough problems with the suitability of the GPL for embedded systems, that we 
don't need to kill the prospering web-apps market too.

After I cover the controversy of the different licences, I'm starting with a 
few bad ideas of what not to do:

1. Bad Idea No. 1: Choose a non-Open-Source Licence:
----------------------------------------------------

Well, I'm not sure it is a bad idea, but choosing a licence for a non-FOSS 
program is out of the scope for what I'm trying to write. I'm not going to 
stop you from trying, but I'm not going to help you with the licence choice. 
My best advice is to consult a lawyer.

2. Bad Idea No. 2: Choose a non-GPL-Compatible Licence:
-------------------------------------------------------

David A. Wheeler wrote about it here:

http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html

Now, since the GPLv2 is incompatible with the GPLv3 (and vice-versa) you 
shouldn't choose GPLv2-only or GPLv3-only or GPLv3-and-above, because some 
projects may be licensed only under one of them. Also, the LGPLv3 is 
incompatible with the GPLv2, so you shouldn't choose it either. 
GPL-version-2-or-above or LGPL-version-2.1-or-above should be OK in this 
respect.

3. Bad Idea No. 3: "Same terms as Perl"
---------------------------------------

I originally wrote about the problem with the "licensed under the same terms 
as Perl itself" here:

http://use.perl.org/~Shlomi+Fish/journal/36050

(It was also covered here: 
http://perlbuzz.com/2008/04/the-problem-with-same-terms-as-perl-licensing.html ).

4. Bad Idea No. 4: "Under the Public Domain"
--------------------------------------------

See "Public Domain" here:

http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Licensing_and_Law/

The concept of "Public Domain" is not recognised in many jurisdications, and 
it is not clear whether one can place a software under the public domain in 
the first place. If you're interested in making your software 
as-close-to-PD-as-possible, you should choose the X11 Licence ( 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License ).

5. Bad Idea No. 5: Use the GPL or the LGPL:
-------------------------------------------

The GPL/LGPL contain many additional restrictions to the concept of copyleft, 
and are very mis-understood, over-hyped, and don't maintain compatibility 
with newer versions. Even the LGPL is reportedly problematic:

http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joel.3.642822.36

The GPL and LGPL are of more political nature than other similar FOSS 
licences, and as such should be avoided. I recommend using the SleepyCat 
licence ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleepycat_License ), which is a 
strong-copyleft licence, that is compatible with GPLv2 and above, instead of 
the GPL and the Artistic 2.0 (or above) licence instead of the LGPL.

I read the GPLv2 originally once and couldn't understand it. The LGPLv2 or the 
GPLv3 would likely prove to be more problematic.

--------

Finally, not a statement of a bad idea in itself, but a call to use the X11 
Licence (or similar FOSS licences). That's because

- It's simple.
- It's easy to understand.
- It's practically PD which is what people innocently expect.
- Much fewer worries on who can violate your licence.
- Still gives you protection against litigation.
- It's GPL-compatible.
- You can boast that your program is Public domain / BSD-style.

----------------------

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
What Makes Software Apps High Quality -  http://xrl.us/bkeuk

Shlomi, so what are you working on? Working on a new wiki about unit testing 
fortunes in freecell? -- Ran Eilam

---

From: Omer Zak <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:38:23 +0200

On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 01:33 +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> modifications public.

It is my understanding that you do not have to make your modifications
available to people, who don't surf your Web site.  So if you install
the stuff on your own PC and allow only localhost to access it, then you
don't have to release your modifications to the public.

But IANAL and I may be factually mistaken about this.

> 5. Bad Idea No. 5: Use the GPL or the LGPL:
[... snipped ...]
> licences, and as such should be avoided.

I agree that GPL and LGPL have political agenda.
I disagree that they should be avoided because of this reason.

In an ideal world, in which all software vendors act fairly and compete
only over the merits of their products, politics would not be necessary.

But in today's world, politically-charged licenses - on at least part of
the software running the world - are essential to keep the unfair
software vendors in check.  For, without viral licenses, they can take
over any Free Software and create closed source derivatives out of it.

Unrelated to the above, consider the fragmentation of the Unix world in
the 1980's vs. the natural tendency to converge in the Linux world.  The
GPL played an important role in making this convergence happen.

> - You can boast that your program is Public domain / BSD-style.

However the X11 License still allows unfair software vendors to use your
software to maintain their stranglehold over the software world.

-- 
Did you shave a yak today?
My own blog is at http://www.zak.co.il/tddpirate/

My opinions, as expressed in this E-mail message, are mine alone.
They do not represent the official policy of any organization with which
I may be affiliated in any way.
WARNING TO SPAMMERS:  at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 20:33:51 +0200

Hi Omer!

On Thursday 06 November 2008, Omer Zak wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License - which aims
> > to close the "Application Service Provider Loophole". What it means is
> > that if I install an AGPLed program on a web-server and modify it then I
> > must make my modifications public.
>

No, you are right. I should have phrased it as an "on a public web-server". 
However, this misphrasing still doesn't make it a better licence, or make it 
any more free accrding to my interpretation of the Free Software Definition.

> over any Free Software and create closed source derivatives out of it.

The SleepyCat licence is a viral licence, but is much less politically charged 
than the GPL, and I didn't have a problem understanding it. As a result I 
recommend using it instead of the GPL, should you decide to use a viral 
licence.

Similarly, the Artistic 2.0 licence is LGPL-like, and should be used instead 
of the LGPL because it's less politically charged and problematic.

> GPL played an important role in making this convergence happen.

Possibly - I'm not sure. It preceded my time. However, there's a strong 
convergence in the BSD, X11, and Apache worlds today, and they are all based 
on BSD-style licences. GPL doesn't positively prevent fragmentation, as it 
explicitly allows forking.

>
> > Finally, not a statement of a bad idea in itself, but a call to use the
> > X11 Licence (or similar FOSS licences). That's because
> >
> > - It's simple.

So do the LGPL/Artistic/etc. licences within some legally-complying limits. 
And even the GPL can be used as long as one does not directly link to GPLed 
code. In any case, I'm not too worried about trying to undermine "unfair 
software vendors". If they pose a threat (which I don't think they do), then 
no amount of keeping my code GPLed will prevent that threat. If they don't 
pose a threat, then making my code viral will not help them and may likely 
pose a problem to many benevolent developers (also of FOSS). To quote Alan 
Kay, "Don't worry about what everybody else are doing. The best way to 
predict the future is to invent it.". 

----------

One thing I forgot to note is that the GPL often stands against the Hacker 
Ethics as presented by ESR in http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html 
(and which I agree with), that says that "No problem should ever have to be 
solved twice.". For example, the FSF now started the GNU PDF project so it 
will be a GPL version 3-licenced code because both ghostscript and xpdf are 
GPLv2-only. Or the story here - http://www.osnews.com/story/7241 that said 
that:

{{{{{{{{
Once before, someone had contributed a patch to add boolean operations, but 
that patch relied on a polygon clipping library provided under an 
incompatible license. There's little more frustrating than having a solution 
in hand, only to be hamstrung by legal problems. Even though it was an 
important feature for us, we regretfully postponed development of it into the 
distant future on our roadmap and proceeded with other work. 
}}}}}}}}

Or the fact OpenBSD is now re-implementing a lot of GNU GPL code from scratch 
because they find the GPL too restrictive.

And I should also note that often one can build upon non-GPL-like-code and not 
release the derived work as FOSS, without it causing any harm, and actually 
causing a lot of good. Which is otherwise prevented if the code is GPL.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/ways_to_do_it.html

---

From: "Amit Aronovitch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 02:47:06 +0200

> (Who are you going to believe?)

Possibly all. The reason is that "freeness" is not a boolean parameter. Not
even a single parameter real-valued scale. There are multiple criteria,
possibly contradicting each other. Much like human rights...
It is much more practical to talk about specific definitions, such as
OSI-free/DFSG-free/FSF-free etc.
As your examples clearly demonstrate, these do not comply to a total
ordering (in the mathematical sense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order ).

You should decide how you *want* your work to be distributed and choose the
license accordingly (effectively decide which criteria should take
priority). CC has a nice mechanism for it.

> Debian legal team concluded that they were not free.[1]

Notes:
(1) Version 3.0 CC licenses *are* considered DFSG-free.
(2) As for 2.0 and 2.5, seems that the issue is undecided, and under
negotiations (between CC and Debian-legal)
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#head-67131dbee718a24e1d227819dd818784aceb9cc9
 Personally, I think this is a case of unreasonably paranoidic
interpretation of the license and they *should* be considered DFSG-free.

> rules as software,

In principle, I tend to agree. However you should specify which of the 9
guidelines ( http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines ) if any,
could be lifted for non-software contents.
This might not be as easy as it seems. For example, the most common (and
annoying) cause for removed documentation in Debian is rejection of the
GFDL. However, this can not be avoided. Because of the GFDL's reuirements on
availability of opaque sources (which is a "restriction on redistribution"),
one would not be able to (automatically) remove deprecated documentation
packages from Debian repositories without legally violating the GFDL.
{{{ The part that I find most annoying is not the rejection of the GFDL by
itself, but the tendency of some package maintainers to *delete* the GFDL
docs instead of splitting the package into "free" and "non-free" parts }}

and even RMS said that computer games are morally allowed
> everybody into abiding by irrational rules.

As I said, you can't compare Debian and the FSF with a "greater than"
relation. And DFSG freeness is not strictly a question of morality. For
example, mandatory clickwrap might not be immoral, but allowing it would
place an unreasonable burden on Debian users.

> 5. Bad Idea No. 5: Use the GPL or the LGPL:
True - simplicity is a valid consideration for choosing the license. If it
is more important to you that your *users* understand your license than the
lawyers of some software corps - don't choose GPL.
The FSF seems to take the position that it is more important to protect the
users and authors from IP lawyers finding loopholes to limit usage or
redistribution of the software.

--------
> Finally, not a statement of a bad idea in itself, but a call to use the X11

(just dont confuse with XFree86 1.1 license ;-) )

> - You can boast that your program is Public domain / BSD-style.

Good choice in many cases.
However, note that some people who spent a lot of time developing free
software, want to ensure it is used on fair terms ( as Linus said: "I give
out code, I want you to do the same."
http://www.forbes.com/technology/2006/03/09/torvalds-linux-licensing-cz_dl_0309torvalds1.html)
and consider this more important than the "hacker ethics rule" of problems
not having to be solved twice, or the desire to increase the user base.
Copyleft is completely legitimate and there is nothing morally wrong with
it.

   AA

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 07:24:38 +0200

> priority). CC has a nice mechanism for it.

Well, generally speaking one should strive for endorsement as free (and 
preferably GPL-compatibility) by everybody. Otherwise, you may be facing 
problems. As for CC, the standard CC licences 
(CC-by/CC-by-sa/CC-by-nc-sa/CC-by-nd/etc.) are not suitable for software due 
to their attribution clause:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html

In fact, the Creative Commons does not let you choose "software" as the type 
of artwork, when filling their form.

> > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#OtherLicenses ), while
> > the Debian legal team concluded that they were not free.[1]
>
> Notes:

I see. That's god.

> http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#head-67131dbee718a24e1d227819dd818784ac
>eb9cc9 Personally, I think this is a case of unreasonably paranoidic

OK.

> > including only free-as-in-speech material in their distribution,
> > regardless of its type. I don't feel that non-software-content should
> > abide by the same
> > rules as software,
>
> GFDL. However, this can not be avoided. Because of the GFDL's reuirements
> on availability of opaque sources (which is a "restriction on
> redistribution"), one would not be able to (automatically) remove
> deprecated documentation packages from Debian repositories without legally
> violating the GFDL. {{{ The part that I find most annoying is not the
> rejection of the GFDL by itself, but the tendency of some package
> maintainers to *delete* the GFDL docs instead of splitting the package into
> "free" and "non-free" parts }}
>

Interesting. Wouldn't one be able to remove the packages from the Deian's 
repository and let it rot on a public (and accessible) web-site of deprecated 
packages? IANAL, so I don't know.

> place an unreasonable burden on Debian users.

OK.

> redistribution of the software.

Yes.

> > X11

Yes.

> http://www.forbes.com/technology/2006/03/09/torvalds-linux-licensing-cz_dl_
>0309torvalds1.html) and consider this more important than the "hacker ethics
> rule" of problems not having to be solved twice, or the desire to increase
> the user base. Copyleft is completely legitimate and there is nothing
> morally wrong with it.

Didn't say there was. What I did say was that GPLv2-only or GPLv3-and-above 
(or even LGPLv3-and-above due to its incompatibility with GPLv2) do often 
stand against the Hacker's Ethics because they pose unnecessary limits on 
which code can be linked to other code. This is while a strong copyleft 
licence such as the SleepyCat Licence, or simpler weak copyleft licences such 
as Artistic 2.0 - which are less political and loaded than the FSF licences - 
are much better in this regard. As a result, I find licensing under them 
preferable and in better accordance to the Hacker's Ethics.

The reason I like to use the X11L, is not because of that reason, but rather 
because not only I don't mind people "abusing" my software by building upon 
it to make a proprietary/non-free/non-GPL-compatible product,  but I 
encourage it in some specific contexts.

But it's ultimately up to the originator to decide which licence to use. If 
you want to publish your software under the Microsoft Vista EULA, then all 
the power to you. I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole, but I don't 
consider it an immoral act per-ce.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
Parody on "The Fountainhead" - http://xrl.us/bjria

---

From: Omer Zak <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 01:35:16 +0200

> recommend using it instead of the GPL, should you decide to use a viral 

I understood that you are (not strongly) against all viral licenses,
regardless of whether they provide us with protection against the unfair
software vendors.

> of the LGPL because it's less politically charged and problematic.

See above.

> explicitly allows forking.

1. Research this!  The above fragmentation can be considered to have
preceded also my time, because I was not conscious of this world until
1991 (unrelated to Linux).

2. In practice, it turns out that overwhelming majority of GPLed
software does not fragment.
While the GPL allows forking, in practice it turns out that there is an
incentive for people to stick together in a single project, because if
the original GPLed project has forked into two projects, then they are
allowed to use each other's improvements, and eventually one of them
turns out to be better (code/documentation/management/politics/business)
and wins over the minds and hearts of developers and the other project
dies natural death.

>  In any case, I'm not too worried about trying to undermine "unfair 
> software vendors".

You can afford the luxury of not being too worried about unfair software
vendors, because other people do the heavy worrying in your behalf.
This is like parents who get away with not vaccinating their children
against childhood diseases due to ideological reasons, and it turns out
that their children stay healthy because the other children in their
kindergarten or classroom have been vaccinated.

>  If they pose a threat (which I don't think they do), then 
> no amount of keeping my code GPLed will prevent that threat.

This is a case in which every little bit helps.

>  If they don't 
> pose a problem to many benevolent developers (also of FOSS).

I think that LGPL is the best compromise - LGPLed software can be part
of proprietary software, yet any modifications to the LGPLed part must
be available in source code to users of the proprietary software, along
with means for linking modified LGPLed modules into the software.

>  To quote Alan 

This quote can be invoked as a reason to use GPL/LGPL, not only as a
reason against it.  By using GPL/LGPL on your software, you invent a
future for Free Software.

> because they find the GPL too restrictive.

The people, who slapped the GPL license on their code, expect to be paid
in a way (not monetary), which OpenBSD is not willing to pay.  This is
not different from re-implementing a proprietary software application on
your own because the one you can buy in shop is too expensive for you to
buy.

Your argument is not different in essence from the argument of someone,
who wants to buy a Ferrari car but grumbles about its high price.

> causing a lot of good. Which is otherwise prevented if the code is GPL.

RMS would disagree with you, and he could cite the printer driver
example as an counterexample to your point.

                                             --- Omer

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:31:42 +0200

Hi Omer!

Sorry for the late response.

On Sunday 09 November 2008, Omer Zak wrote:
> > > But in today's world, politically-charged licenses - on at least part
> > > of the software running the world - are essential to keep the unfair
> > The SleepyCat licence is a viral licence, but is much less politically
> > charged than the GPL, and I didn't have a problem understanding it. As a
> > result I recommend using it instead of the GPL, should you decide to use
> > a viral licence.
>

I am against them in the sense that I prefer not to use them for my code. But 
I accept the fact that some people want to use them. However, I do think that 
the SleepyCat licence is preferable over the GPL for the reasons I cited 
below.

>
> > Similarly, the Artistic 2.0 licence is LGPL-like, and should be used
> > instead of the LGPL because it's less politically charged and
> > problematic.
>
> See above.

The Artistic licence is not strong-copyleft. I am not against the Artistic 
licence (at least not as much I am against the GPL or the SleepyCat 
licences), but on the other hand, what I mean is that the GPL and LGPL, are 
too over-complicated, incomprehensible, and heavily misunderstood to be a 
wise choice as a licence.

> > > the 1980's vs. the natural tendency to converge in the Linux world. 
> > > The GPL played an important role in making this convergence happen.
> >
> > convergence in the BSD, X11, and Apache worlds today, and they are all
> > based on BSD-style licences. GPL doesn't positively prevent
> > fragmentation, as it explicitly allows forking.
>

I have researched it to some extent.

> and wins over the minds and hearts of developers and the other project

Well, the same thing can be said about forks of BSD-style-licensed projects 
that are both kept under the same licence. In regards to proprietary 
spin-offs - given enough motivation on those who remained FOSS, they can 
continue working on the codebase, and gain inspiration from the properietary 
spin-offs. 

> kindergarten or classroom have been vaccinated.

Interesting analogy. Well, companies who wish to develop proprietary software 
have enough BSD-licenced (or possibly also LGPL/Artistic/etc.) code or 
alterantively proprietary code that they can build on (like the Microsoft 
APIs) for them to not have to use any GPLed code.

Furthermore, I don't think the FOSS world is under any threat from proprietary 
software vendors, that can be prevnted if I GPLed all my code. Can you cite 
any possible substantial threat?

> > pose a threat, then making my code viral will not help them and may
> > likely pose a problem to many benevolent developers (also of FOSS).
>

Like I said, I still prefer LGPL-like-licences that are not the LGPL, because 
the LGPL is based on the GPL (only more complicated) and because I don't 
understand it.

> future for Free Software.

"Invent a future"? If I release software under any licence, I invent a future. 
The licence affects the kind of future there is going be, but not its 
substance.

>
> > One thing I forgot to note is that the GPL often stands against the
> > Hacker Ethics as presented by ESR in
> > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html (and which I agree with),
> > that says that "No problem should ever have to be solved twice.". For
> > example, the FSF now started the GNU PDF project so it will be a GPL
> > version 3-licenced code because both ghostscript and xpdf are GPLv2-only.
> > Or the story here - http://www.osnews.com/story/7241 that said that:
> >
> > {{{{{{{{
> > Once before, someone had contributed a patch to add boolean operations,
> > but that patch relied on a polygon clipping library provided under an
> > incompatible license. There's little more frustrating than having a
> > solution in hand, only to be hamstrung by legal problems. Even though it
> > was an important feature for us, we regretfully postponed development of
> > it into the distant future on our roadmap and proceeded with other work.
> > }}}}}}}}
> >
> > Or the fact OpenBSD is now re-implementing a lot of GNU GPL code from
> > scratch because they find the GPL too restrictive.
>

Have you noticed what I said about the Hacker Ethics? This is not about 
complying to the originator's whims. This is about making sure everyone in 
the world will build on each other's efforts instead of having to waste time 
in duplicating them. 

> > And I should also note that often one can build upon non-GPL-like-code
> > and not release the derived work as FOSS, without it causing any harm,
> > and actually causing a lot of good. Which is otherwise prevented if the
> > code is GPL.
>

I said "often" not "always". People such as RMS would claim that all 
proprietary software is Evil and should be avoided. My argument is that often 
it doesn't cause any damage.

For example, someone integrated my Freecell Solver library in a shareware 
(without source) game he wrote titled Freecell 3D:

http://www.ambermango.com/php/am/f3d/index.php

He sells ths game online. It did not do any damage, because there are plenty 
of Freecell implementations around. I on my part am pretty happy with the 
open-source PySolFC.

On the other hand, it has some innovative features that we can now duplicate, 
or draw inspiration from.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
Understand what Open Source is - http://xrl.us/bjn82

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 11:08:43 +0200

> any possible substantial threat?

Thinking of future threats is hard (in the banking business, this is a whole
profession, and as you can see lately, the haven't been doing a very good
job. But as they say, "Hindsight is always 20:20", and it's easier to look
at the past.

And the experience of the last 20 years indeed shown that proprietary
software vendor's use of BSD has been a problem to free software. Not a huge
problem, certainly nothing that could ever kill free software, but a problem
nontheless.

Let me give you just a few examples.

In the second half of the 90s, X-Windows was quite popular - a department
(in universities, companies, etc.) would have strong Unix workstations
(from Sun, DEC, SGI, HP and other vendors) and people would have cheaper
machines showing the output from the strong machine using X-Windows. As
MS-Windows grew popular, people wanted to use their PC running Windows to
display X-Windows sessions. But unfortunately, the only X server available
for Windows was commercial software (Exceed), which could happen because X
was BSD-licensed and not GPL. Users (at the time, most had corporate or
university funds - they weren't home users) bit the bullet and paid. It took
literarly years before a free X server for Windows became available.

Another example - Mosix. Mosix (if you're familiar with it) was written over
a *proprietary* BSD variant called BSDI. Because the BSD licence allowed BSDI
to make it proprietary, and Mosix made the error in judgement (or, more
accurately, at the time of the judgement there weren't many alternatives)
of using it, for many years Mosix itself could not be made free software,
even though the people in the Hebrew University who developed it wanted to
do so.

Another less clear-cut example is the massive Unix diversity of the 90s.
A dozen companies, like Sun, HP, DEC, SGI, AT&T, SCO, BSDI, all created
their own variants of Unix and spent thousands of man-years on their
development. On the positive side, the Unix world was thriving because of
this diversity, but on the negative side, none of these thousands of man
years went into free software, and Richard Stallman and his friends had
to spend nearly a decade to replicate all this work. Is it surprising, then,
that Richard Stallman wanted to invent the copyleft license?

> > > no amount of keeping my code GPLed will prevent that threat.

The GPL is not trying to prevent free software from being destroyed, but
rather to "force" people and companies into spending their work into free
software, rather than proprietary software. And I think you can't deny it's
succeeding. The Linux kernel is the most obvious example - after decades
where every company created their own kernel or took a BSD-licensed kernel
and "appropriated" it, in the last decade there is a huge push for all
comapnies to work together on the open Linux kernel, and all these companies
are "forced" to contribute their work back to free software.

> of Freecell implementations around. I on my part am pretty happy with the 

Let's imagine that you wrote a great freecell solver library, but you suck at
UI and failed to create a graphical game based on that library, and wish that
someone created a UI on top of your library. If your library is BSD, someone
could create this UI but make it commercial and not even you can use it.
If your library is GPL, this person is forced to either make his code public
(so you and your friends can use it) or pay you for a new license.
Which of those scenarios will make you happier? I can't see how the GPL isn't
better in this scenario.

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |     Sunday, Nov 23 2008, 25 Heshvan 5769
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |The two rules for success are: 1. Never
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |tell them everything you know.

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:51:01 +0200

On Sunday 23 November 2008, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> > Furthermore, I don't think the FOSS world is under any threat from
> > proprietary software vendors, that can be prevnted if I GPLed all my
> > code. Can you cite any possible substantial threat?
>
> Thinking of future threats is hard (in the banking business, this is a
> whole profession, and as you can see lately, the haven't been doing a very
> good job. But as they say, "Hindsight is always 20:20", and it's easier to
> look at the past.
>
> software vendor's use of BSD has been a problem to free software. Not a
> huge problem, certainly nothing that could ever kill free software, but a
> problem nontheless.
>
> university funds - they weren't home users) bit the bullet and paid. It
> took literarly years before a free X server for Windows became available.

I agree this is a problem. However, if X-Windows were GPLed, then the people 
who made Exceed and wanted to sell it, would not have made it in the first 
place, because they had to make it GPLed. So either they would have 
implemented it from scratch or not at all. It is possible that a different 
group would have created a free X server for Windows, but it is possible that 
no free X server would have been available at all. And if a different group 
could have created a free X server for Windows without Exceed, they could 
have certainly created it with it.

>
> Another example - Mosix. Mosix (if you're familiar with it) was written
> over a *proprietary* BSD variant called BSDI. Because the BSD licence
> allowed BSDI to make it proprietary, and Mosix made the error in judgement
> (or, more accurately, at the time of the judgement there weren't many
> alternatives) of using it, for many years Mosix itself could not be made
> free software, even though the people in the Hebrew University who
> developed it wanted to do so.

Well, the same problem could have been present if Mosix had chosen to use a 
System V-based UNIX (or a different proprietary OS altogether) that never 
originated from BSD-style code (although it did incorporate some code from 
BSD). This is a problem on the judgement of the Mosix developers, not on the 
availability of BSDI by itself.

> to spend nearly a decade to replicate all this work. Is it surprising,
> then, that Richard Stallman wanted to invent the copyleft license?

> comapnies to work together on the open Linux kernel, and all these
> companies are "forced" to contribute their work back to free software.

This is true.

> > He sells ths game online. It did not do any damage, because there are
> > plenty of Freecell implementations around. I on my part am pretty happy
> > with the open-source PySolFC.
>
> Let's imagine that you wrote a great freecell solver library, but you suck
> at UI and failed to create a graphical game based on that library, and wish
> that someone created a UI on top of your library. 

That's a lot of if's. When I started working on Freecell Solver, there were 
already plenty of graphical Freecell games, possibly with support for other 
variants of Solitaire. And there were also several open-source ones, 
including some very polished ones.

As a result, I could have easily integrated my solver into one of them. So 
your thought experiment is not very realistic, although it may be valid in 
the general case.

> If your library is BSD, 
> someone could create this UI but make it commercial and not even you can
> use it. If your library is GPL, this person is forced to either make his
> code public (so you and your friends can use it) or pay you for a new
> license. 

He could also:

1. Develop his own Freecell solving library from scratch. That will probably 
be less work than developing a graphical Freecell game.

2. Write a command line executable that uses the library call it, and process 
its output. This strategy was taken by the PySolFC developers out of 
convenience using my existing "fc-solve" executable.

3. Write a GPLed server for solving Freecell that the graphical game would 
communicate with using TCP/IP or a different IPC mechanism.

4. Decide that developing a graphical game only to later release it as free 
software won't be worth his time, and as a result not develop it at all.

In all of these cases, we won't have a graphical game as FOSS.

> Which of those scenarios will make you happier? I can't see how 
> the GPL isn't better in this scenario.

I'd rather have a proprietary derived work than no work at all, or instead 
someone duplicating my effort in creating a BSD or a proprietary replacement 
for my work.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
Interview with Ben Collins-Sussman - http://xrl.us/bjn8s

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:09:59 +0200

On Sunday 23 November 2008 13:51:01 Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] "Licences
>
> Wars"":
> > whole profession, and as you can see lately, the haven't been doing a
> > very good job. But as they say, "Hindsight is always 20:20", and it's
> > easier to look at the past.
> >
> > display X-Windows sessions. But unfortunately, the only X server
> > available for Windows was commercial software (Exceed), which could
> > happen because X was BSD-licensed and not GPL. Users (at the time, most
> > had corporate or university funds - they weren't home users) bit the
> > bullet and paid. It took literarly years before a free X server for
> > Windows became available.
>
> I agree this is a problem. However, if X-Windows were GPLed, then the
> people who made Exceed and wanted to sell it, would not have made it in the
> first place, because they had to make it GPLed. So either they would have
> group would have created a free X server for Windows, but it is possible
> that no free X server would have been available at all. And if a different
> group could have created a free X server for Windows without Exceed, they
> could have certainly created it with it.
>

Now that I think of it, I have another vital thought experiment to add to 
this. If X11 had been initiated under a non-BSD-style-licence, then it is 
possible it would not have become as ubiquitous as it is in the UNIX world, 
thus making it irrelevant to port it to Windows in the first place. We can't 
tell that for sure, but I think it is a possibility.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish (who is now trying to prepare a coherent document out of this 
thread).

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
Original Riddles - http://www.shlomifish.org/puzzles/

<mauke>    I'm not interested in what you're doing; what are you trying to 
           achieve?
<PerlJam>  mauke: I'm trying to achieve world peace and this regex is
           the last thing standing in my way! ;)

---

From: "Amit Aronovitch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:27:50 +0200

On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > > Now. The first thing I'll mention is that it is not entirely agreed
> upon
> > > which
> > > The original Artistic Licence (authored by Larry Wall for
> dual-licensing
> > > perl)
> > > is:
> > >
> problems.

In this case, your recommendations are also not free enough. Only license
that would work is something like:
"You can do with this work whatever you like, even claim that you did it all
by yourself, no need to mention me. However, you still have the right to sue
me if it does not work".
The reason you don't find any license like that is because authors normally
want to assure at least some of their own rights, and that comes at the
expense of the "freedoms" of the end users. The question is how you
prioritize these freedoms.

You actually want "endorsement as free" not really by *everybody*, just by a
specific list of organizations which you consider relevant for your beliefs
and for the projects you work on.

As for CC, the standard CC licences
> of artwork, when filling their form.

I'm not sure what you mean, but it seems that the discussion in your link is
irrelevant. It speaks about the specific case of attribution in "advertising
materials" (you can't make effective ads if they must include 100
attributions).
The CC attribution clause says only that you must attribute "in the manner
specified by the author" - this in itself places no restriction, all depends
on what the author explicitly requires.

> > (1) Version 3.0 CC licenses *are* considered DFSG-free.

Hmm... I though you were an atheist ;-)

       AA

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:56:19 +0200

On Saturday 10 January 2009 21:27:50 Amit Aronovitch wrote:
> > > Possibly all. The reason is that "freeness" is not a boolean parameter.
> >
> > Not
> >
> > > You should decide how you *want* your work to be distributed and choose
> >
> > the
> >
> "You can do with this work whatever you like, even claim that you did it
> all by yourself, no need to mention me. However, you still have the right
> to sue me if it does not work".

This seems a bit contradictory. And who would be happy with such a licence and 
not with, say, the X11L?

> prioritize these freedoms.

I see.

>
> You actually want "endorsement as free" not really by *everybody*, just by
> a specific list of organizations which you consider relevant for your
> beliefs and for the projects you work on.
>

Well, I have yet to hear of an organisation that doesn't consider the X11L as 
a usable licence. But who knows?

> I'm not sure what you mean, but it seems that the discussion in your link
> is irrelevant. It speaks about the specific case of attribution in
> "advertising materials" (you can't make effective ads if they must include
> 100
> attributions).

I see.

> specified by the author" - this in itself places no restriction, all
> depends on what the author explicitly requires.

Hmmm... interesting. In any case, the FSF does not consider CC-by and CC-by-sa 
as GPL-compatible. And I'm not sure the CC attribution clause (while taking 
into consideration its difference from the original BSDL advertising clause) 
is GPL-compatible. And the Creative Commons still recommends using one of the 
more standard (and older) software licences for licensing programs rather than 
one of the CC licences.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
"Humanity" - Parody of Modern Life - http://xrl.us/bkeut