| |||||||||||||
Is this a blunder, or just too subtle for me?Is this a blunder, or just too subtle for me?Posted Jul 26, 2007 16:00 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Is this a blunder, or just too subtle for me? by rickmoen Parent article: SugarCRM goes to GPLv3
FYI, there are a number of genuinely open source licences, a couple of them OSI certified, that do apply copyleft obligations to the ASP industry. Yup. And they are mostly unsuccessful ones. It's quite hard to distinguish two cases: Licenses like AGPL/APSL punish equally - that's why I'll probably never use AGPL/APSL-licensed software. And if I'll be forced to use such software I'll do everything possible to not ever fix or change it. Even badgeware is better from practical viewpoint. If you'll think about it it's only logical. Yes, usurpation of the code by SaaS vendors is a problem but AGPL is worse medicine then disease itself...
(Log in to post comments)
Is this a blunder, or just too subtle for me? Posted Jul 26, 2007 21:38 UTC (Thu) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] "khim" wrote:Yup. And they are mostly unsuccessful ones. Your "unsuccessful". My "underappreciated so far". It's quite hard to distinguish two cases: And, in my personal view, pointless. (My opinion, yours for a small fee and agreement to post my logo on your forehead. And by the way, I also deny the premise that LWN is a "private endeavour" in any sense meaningful to this context. Of course, Jon and co. happen to use their own code, IIRC.) Rick Moen
Is this a blunder, or just too subtle for me? Posted Jul 27, 2007 6:45 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] And by the way, I also deny the premise that LWN is a "private endeavour" in any sense meaningful to this context. And I deny the premise that the sky is blue. LWN is "private endeavour" as far as the code is concerned, there are nothing to accept or deny, it's just truth. Of course, Jon and co. happen to use their own code, IIRC. Nope. They use the code from different projects and their own code, too. The problem is: they can not (and will not) use "superprotected" AGPL/APSL code without hassle. And that means you have less potential contributors for AGPL/APSL projects. Most benevolent users of web-server tools pass three stages: Note that they AGPL/APSL breaks all that. If you changed something (for example added some 15-line function which includes SQL-access password) - you MUST publish it (or at least give it to anyone who asks). And this is definitely NOT something stage 2 users (like LWN) will like. This is the question of balance. BSD makes it easy to use stuff but encourages private forks. GPL makes it harder to use stuff but discourages private forks and so wins in long run. AGPL/APSL makes it even harder to use stuff and makes all changes public (so private forks are even less likely). My opinion is that it makes use so hard that 90% of people will just not bother, but I can be wrong. To just deny this problem is to delude himself (or herself).
Is this a blunder, or just too subtle for me? Posted Jul 27, 2007 9:31 UTC (Fri) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] khim wrote:LWN is "private endeavour" as far as the code is concerned, there are nothing to accept or deny, it's just truth. My usual response to tiresome definitional games is to descend down the abstraction ladder and talk about something more specific, so let's do that here. I had thought that LWN is build on homebuilt Web-app code, which you say is not entirely the case. OK, but then my concern applies more rather than less: The only sense of "private endeavour" that struck me as meaningful in this context is "entirely internal project". Obviously, LWN is not (other than in the form-over-substance sense that I believe you're advocating): Although its foundational code does not get distributed, all the functionality that in pre-ASP days required distribution is deployed and used by public users. That is "private" only in a deliberately blinkered sense of the term (and your polemically labelling such things "private forks" should fool very few, this late in the game). If, on the one hand, some portion of LWN's third-party code is under simple permissive licences, then none of the above matters at all, as to that code, since the authors intended all manner of usage including proprietary forks, anyway. If, on the other hand, some code is copylefted, then odds are that those codebases' authors intended for public exploitation of their code to trigger copyleft reciprocity obligations, and merely made an (obsolete) assumption that such exploitation would entail distribution. I know from damned sure that the licences' authors intended that, because I asked. Frankly, it's abundantly obvious that you know all that, and merely dislike it, presumably finding it inconvenient. Sorry to hear about your personal problem, but kindly just step out of the way while other people update their assumptions, and their licensing practices to match. Rick Moen
|
|||||||||||||