I think the LGPL might be the best choice today and I advised the jBoss folks to make the change. When Sun finally decides to apply the GPL to the JDK, it's a different ball game and the GPL might make more sense.
No. Licenses don't make sense if you can modify th e version that applies to a particular instance of software. Which is why the GPL doesn't let you do that. It does, however, make sense to change a license and apply that to new software. Which is why FSF has allowed people to do that - there are a number of licenses which clone text of the GPL and have been authorized to do so.
The GPL works by turning copyright law on its head. The difference between the GPL and the BSD licenses is that GPL licensors participate in an exchange of free software, while BSD licensors effectively give their code away in a similar manner to public domain except that there's attribution. Both licenses have their place.
Well, that (at your option) clause is pretty important because it rules out abuses that tighten the rules. You are suggesting that someone could take over FSF and issue licenses that loosen the current GPL protections. But the GPL says new versions will be similar in spirit to this one, and if they are not, that's a valid challenge to the new license in court.
the point
I'm attempting to make is that merely linking shouldn't be covered under the GPL IMHO
It's difficult to not cover linking and maintain the quid-pro-quo. The idea is that I am not giving away my code by GPL-ing it, I am inviting others to use it, and I am inviting other programmers to participate in an exchange with me by giving me the same terms on their code that I am giving them on my code. If you don't cover linking, there's no longer anything that provides incentive for an exchange because the other party doesn't have any obligation to me.
Regarding whether a derived work of a GPL product has to be a library, LGPL section 2(a) in combination with the three paragraphs of section 3 would have a derived work that is not a library not be covered by the LGPL and suggests that the GPL be applied. But given the definition of a library at LGPL section 0, second paragraph, you could make the case that any source-code-available work is a library.
FSF actually is more than one person. Read the interview of Eben, a few articles down from this one on the Slashdot front page. He's the attorney who works on the GPL. There is also an executive director, Tim Ney, and a board of directors, and then there's the "kitchen cabinet" like me who will be consulted just to check for mistakes before something's sent to the general public.
Sure - fame is a powerful force and one that I take advantage of. But people here on Slashdot and in the broader community haven't been afraid to take issue with me, and prove me wrong when necessary. I doubt RMS would be treated any differently.
OK, I'll act as if you asked a serious question. The instructions don't need to be under the GPL, using them to build a Beowulf cluster would be fair use under copyright law.
The investment in infrastructure required to copy a disk is much lower than that required to copy a car. If that was not the case, perhaps more people would be designing their own cars and there might be "Free" designs in the Free Software sense.
Well, the Open Source Initiative operates a license-discuss mailing list that is open to the public and has been well-advertised. They post licenses there for debate before they are approved. RMS can do the same sort of thing.
In practice, there aren't that many people who want to really think about licenses and discuss them for an extended period. Those that will tend to represent larger interest groups. Most of the people who participate in those discussions should probably have gone to law school. Sometimes I wonder if I should have, but I like my life:-).
RMS doesn't have too much power, because he can't compel anyone to apply a new license to their software. Thus, he must get consensus to be effective, and he has an incentive to engage in dialogue with the community. You could write your own license with all of the legal standing of his, you know, and if you got a greater consensus, people might prefer to use yours over his.
RMS is hardly elitist. If you write to him and you're civil, he'll answer. He used to answer me back in the 80's and early 90's, when he had no reason to know who I was.
One interesting thing about RMS: he's not a pacifist. Ask him about it sometime.
The Open Source Definition disallows this sort of license clause. Look at the part concerning "fields of endeavor". When I wrote that part in, I was thinking about people who might want to prohibit use of their software by abortion clinics, or by anti-abortion protesters. The Berkeley SPICE software actually prohibited use by the police of South Africa, and that provision remained in the license long after Apartheid had ended. So, I decided that this sort of license provision wasn't really a good idea.
OK, I'm standing up. Go look up my phone number on my web site or with "whois perens.com", and call me, if I'm not in the shower I'll answer. I changed my signature, but my user-id is still the same. People were getting tired of that old signature.
RMS hasn't even started writing it. He's at the stage of soliciting your opinion. He has made it clear that he's not going to make any changes without an extended community consultation. The sky will not fall, the rules will not change for existing software because you always have the option of applying the present GPL, people will have a choice of what license version to apply to new software. Choice is good.
The choice of what license version to use is up to the individual copyright holder. Most of them say "version 2 or any later version", but Linus says "version 2", period, and will make his own choice later when he can see the text of a new license, along with the other copyright holders.
Say I decided to deliver my free speech in your living room, day and night, without cease, making your property unusable for your habitation. Does my free speech right override your property right?
We all accept some reduction of our free speech right to live peacefully in community. Free speech is irrelevant without community, because without community there is nobody to speak to. So much for Mill's absolutes.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
No, and that's why you should leave the "any later version" part in place.
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
It's difficult to not cover linking and maintain the quid-pro-quo. The idea is that I am not giving away my code by GPL-ing it, I am inviting others to use it, and I am inviting other programmers to participate in an exchange with me by giving me the same terms on their code that I am giving them on my code. If you don't cover linking, there's no longer anything that provides incentive for an exchange because the other party doesn't have any obligation to me.
Regarding whether a derived work of a GPL product has to be a library, LGPL section 2(a) in combination with the three paragraphs of section 3 would have a derived work that is not a library not be covered by the LGPL and suggests that the GPL be applied. But given the definition of a library at LGPL section 0, second paragraph, you could make the case that any source-code-available work is a library.
Thanks
Bruce
Sure - fame is a powerful force and one that I take advantage of. But people here on Slashdot and in the broader community haven't been afraid to take issue with me, and prove me wrong when necessary. I doubt RMS would be treated any differently.
Thanks
Bruce
If you can explain better why you think the LGPL doesn't work for libraries, without resorting to metaphor, I'll try to debate you.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
In practice, there aren't that many people who want to really think about licenses and discuss them for an extended period. Those that will tend to represent larger interest groups. Most of the people who participate in those discussions should probably have gone to law school. Sometimes I wonder if I should have, but I like my life :-) .
RMS doesn't have too much power, because he can't compel anyone to apply a new license to their software. Thus, he must get consensus to be effective, and he has an incentive to engage in dialogue with the community. You could write your own license with all of the legal standing of his, you know, and if you got a greater consensus, people might prefer to use yours over his.
RMS is hardly elitist. If you write to him and you're civil, he'll answer. He used to answer me back in the 80's and early 90's, when he had no reason to know who I was.
Thanks
Bruce
The Open Source Definition disallows this sort of license clause. Look at the part concerning "fields of endeavor". When I wrote that part in, I was thinking about people who might want to prohibit use of their software by abortion clinics, or by anti-abortion protesters. The Berkeley SPICE software actually prohibited use by the police of South Africa, and that provision remained in the license long after Apartheid had ended. So, I decided that this sort of license provision wasn't really a good idea.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
We all accept some reduction of our free speech right to live peacefully in community. Free speech is irrelevant without community, because without community there is nobody to speak to. So much for Mill's absolutes.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce