OSS Licensing ( a braindump, feel free to ignore )

xterminus · 2006-10-05 22:16:26

superstoned wrote:

KerowynM wrote:
Light and fast aside I stay away from KDE because of QT. The licencing on QT leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Not so bad that I dont use k3b, but bad enough I don't really want to become dependent on it.
it's GPL... what's wrong with that? personally, i prefer it over BSD and Lesser GPL (like Gtk), as those allow proprietary stuff without any contribution. at least the fact Qt is GPL allows Trolltech to charge proprietary software vendors for it's use, and as this money is used to improve Qt, KDE and other free software, i prefer it that way.

I like reading about free software licenses, and their history and why many were created. It's no suprise than other than a very few licenses, the reasons for the creation of a new license is usally a political statement, and those who "prefer" a license are usually making a subtle political statement.

The recent brouhaha with Linus vs GPLv3 just re-enforces the idea. Linus made a statement about software licenses not making political choices for programmers, and that the GPLv3 is actually a sort of political manifesto of the FSF. While I agree with some of his points, I really think he missed one important thing. The FSF has been political from day one, everything they are doing now would have been pretty damn predictable from the first day RMS heard about DRM, and the first day someone asked 'what about this patent?' on an FSF mailing list.

If Linus+Devs didn't like the motives behind the FSF, they should have written or created another licence. The FSF has been upfront about their motivations since day one. People who disagree with the FSF (and Stallman), find it hard to swallow the fact that if you don't like the philosophy behind the FSF and the GPL - you are at the very least, shunned within their community. Maybe in today's culture of inclusion and political correctness, it's hard for people to believe that anyone would create a community that actively goes about pissing off people who disagree with them.

[15 mins later]

Practical considerations aside, I think GPL users tend to like the philosophy of the Free Software Movement, of which Stallman, Morgan, and Lessig are the crusading leaders. They seem to understand the culture, the history, and agree with the FSF (and by extension, Stallman's) musings on Freedom, esp that of the freedoms for end users.

People who advocate other "OSS" licenses, esp the BSD license seem to consider developers freedoms the thing of critical importance. (I think) they see themselves as benevolent dictators, the intellensia, the thinking elite who have a moral right to make the important decisions for us uneducated end-user lamers.

It's not a new debate. The creation of the US constitution took place under similar circumstances, and the end result was the creation of a bicameral legislative structure which preserved the integrity of the well educated (the senate), and the so called hicks and cretons (which the house of representatives was created for). It's too bad the analogy stops there. It was an elegant solution to the same problem(s), even if the result today is not quite what was expected.

I find this whole debate on the GPLv3 fascinating. You can begin to see where a developer really stands politically, even Linus who has made it a point to be not-political as possible. I think that it has become apparent exactly where important figures in the FLOSS community stand on these important issues They seem to be either interested in protecting their own freedom to do what they want, or interested in in protecting end users from developers doing so called *bad things* like forcing DRM on them.

I dont mean to start a flamewar, but I've been thinking about licenses for the past few days and that thread got me writing and performing a braindump. Maybe something I said up there made sense...

Anyway, that's my muse for today. Any thoughts?

allucid · 2006-10-06 00:49:44

xterminus wrote:

If Linus+Devs didn't like the motives behind the FSF, they should have written or created another licence.

Why? If Linus saw what he liked in the GPLv2 why go on his own and write a new license? The FSF was political at the time but has since then gotten much more deliberate/aggressive.

People who advocate other "OSS" licenses, esp the BSD license seem to consider developers freedoms the thing of critical importance. (I think) they see themselves as benevolent dictators, the intellensia, the thinking elite who have a moral right to make the important decisions for us uneducated end-user lamers.

I advocate the BSD style licenses because 1. GPL-style licenses are mostly unenforceable (how can you tell if a close-sourced product is using your code?) and as a developer I do not have the resources to go after any violations if they were found. And 2. I want anyone to be able to use my code for any purpose. I hope that people would reciprocate but I need to let people make their own decisions, even if I strongly disagree with them.

The users have the choice to use my software or to not use my software given the terms that I have released it under. That is the only choice they need.

xterminus · 2006-10-06 03:22:15

allucid wrote:

Why? If Linus saw what he liked in the GPLv2 why go on his own and write a new license? The FSF was political at the time but has since then gotten much more deliberate/aggressive.

Really? How so? It seems like they've been saying the same things over and over and over and over, and have been so for years now.

allucid wrote:

I advocate the BSD style licenses because 1. GPL-style licenses are mostly unenforceable (how can you tell if a close-sourced product is using your code?)

And a BSD license or a EULA works better to prevent this how?

allucid wrote:

and as a developer I do not have the resources to go after any violations if they were found.

.

So the answer is to give up? If that's the case, why bother licensing at all? Heck, we all know copyright does not apply to impoverished peoples anyway.

allucid wrote:

And 2. I want anyone to be able to use my code for any purpose. I hope that people would reciprocate but I need to let people make their own decisions, even if I strongly disagree with them.

This is exactly what the GPL does in fact, both old and new. Here are some excerpts....

"The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program" -- gpl2

"This License permits you to make and run privately modified versions of the Program, or have others make and run them on your behalf." -- gpl3d2
"This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program." -- gplv3d2

In reference to the draft, the proposed changes don't ban DRM for example, but it does prevent the distribution of free software which would remove end-user freedoms (like the ability to hack on your own code). The whole DRM debate is easily summed up as a great example of limiting free software developers rights to infringe on the so called freedoms of end users.

allucid wrote:

The users have the choice to use my software or to not use my software given the terms that I have released it under. That is the only choice they need.

Most OSS licenses don't cover use restrictions. Only distribution requirements.

xterminus · 2006-10-06 04:04:03

I just realized that this probably isn't a great forum for this topic and that most of you are here for tech support type issues, not license debates.

Sorry if I offended anyone.

Dusty · 2006-10-06 05:32:39

xterminus wrote:

I just realized that this probably isn't a great forum for this topic and that most of you are here for tech support type issues, not license debates.
Sorry if I offended anyone.

No offense, and well spotted, thanks. Such discussions tend to be pointless... points are made, but the cancel each other neatly and no-one will change anyone's mine, hence pointless.

Dusty

Arch Linux

#1 2006-10-05 22:16:26

OSS Licensing ( a braindump, feel free to ignore )

#2 2006-10-06 00:49:44

Re: OSS Licensing ( a braindump, feel free to ignore )

#3 2006-10-06 03:22:15

Re: OSS Licensing ( a braindump, feel free to ignore )

#4 2006-10-06 04:04:03

Re: OSS Licensing ( a braindump, feel free to ignore )

#5 2006-10-06 05:32:39

Re: OSS Licensing ( a braindump, feel free to ignore )

Board footer