| |||||||||||||
Carthago delenda est sed Apache non Carthago estCarthago delenda est sed Apache non Carthago estPosted Jun 16, 2004 6:02 UTC (Wed) by crankysysadmin (guest, #19449)In reply to: Carthago delenda est by angdraug Parent article: A look at SpamAssassin 3.0 For my part, I'm glad to hear SA is in the good company of the Apache folks. License schmicence. Since when is the Apache group evil? And IMNSHO there are plenty of licenses that are incompatible with the GPL that are quite OK, like the Creative Commons ones, the BSD license, etc. I like them all for different reasons. There's no sense in dogmatically insisting on the GPL when there are actual good reasons under varying circumstances to use other licenses.
(Log in to post comments)
Carthago delenda est sed Apache non Carthago est Posted Jun 17, 2004 10:53 UTC (Thu) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] For my part, I'm glad to hear SA is in the good company of the Apache folks. License schmicence. Since when is the Apache group evil? I'm afraid since before I've started to pay attention to them. Besides, there are no good and evil folks, there are good and evil deeds, and that is exactly this "schmicence" attitude that is a problem for me. And IMNSHO there are plenty of licenses that are incompatible with the GPL that are quite OK, like the Creative Commons ones, the BSD license, etc. I think your IMNSHO should be humbled down to IMHO: Creative Commons are far from being OK, they are not even DFSG-compliant, BSD without advertising clause is GPL-compatible and that is why it is OK. There's no sense in dogmatically insisting on the GPL when there are actual good reasons under varying circumstances to use other licenses. Each time GPL is discussed, someone always has to stich the "dogma" label on it. You know what? It's wrong, there are plenty of practical reasons to fight for GPL-compatibility. In Red Hat 7.1, released in 2001, 63% of the software (counted by lines of code) was licensed under GPL and LGPL. In Sisyphus, current snapshot of ALT Linux, 77% of 5500 packages are licensed under GPL and LGPL. Now, isn't it important that it remains possible for two thirds of free software to be able to link and exchange code with the remaining third?
Carthago delenda est sed Apache non Carthago est Posted Jun 17, 2004 11:28 UTC (Thu) by crankysysadmin (guest, #19449) [Link] > Now, isn't it important that it remains possible for two thirds of free> software to be able to link and exchange code with the remaining third? Let me put my opinion this way: I'm not as idealistic as you (which need not be interpreted as a criticism) and therefore I'm glad that there are licenses out there that are not quite as permissive as the GPL but which are still worlds apart from the closed-source proprietary world. More simply put: I think getting rid of all non-GPL licenses would, at this stage of the OSS struggle, result in less free software, FSVO 'free'. However, I think the DFSG are great, and I think the GPL is great. I think they incorporate an ideal that still needs to be worked toward, and (important point) with which not everyone is fully comfortable (that's where the "dogma" would come in). Until that time let there be more free software, and let the developers of that software live with the harsh realities of not being able to swap code with absolutely everyone, and perhaps then they'll see the light.
Carthago delenda est sed Apache non Carthago est Posted Jun 17, 2004 12:43 UTC (Thu) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] I'm not as idealistic as you There, now you've put another false label on me, even if less negative than "dogma". Please, don't do that again. I think getting rid of all non-GPL licenses would, at this stage of the OSS struggle, result in less free software, FSVO 'free'. 1. Don't put words in my mouth. I am talking GPL-incompatible here, not non-GPL. Can you see the difference? 2. Getting rid of GPL-incompatible licenses would result in one strong community, instead of the fracturing set of smaller communities sharing nothing but name, and confused even about that (OSS vs. free software). However, I think the DFSG are great, and I think the GPL is great. Now that intro brought up my spin-doctor alarm. Sorry, but I'm too used to hearing this exact phrase from folks who don't really mean it... I think they incorporate an ideal (...) with which not everyone is fully comfortable (that's where the "dogma" would come in). There, you did it again, now using both "idealism" and "dogma" labels in one sentence. Stick a label, rinse, repeat? Of course there are people who are not comfortable with the idea of freedom. Otherwise, you wouldn't have to fight for it, right?
Carthago delenda est sed Apache non Carthago est Posted Jun 17, 2004 14:07 UTC (Thu) by crankysysadmin (guest, #19449) [Link] Whatever. No offense meant, I don't want to get in a flame war with you, nor did I intentionally put words in your mouth with my "I" statement. However, you're seemingly deliberately ignoring my point, which merits one more response from me. Let me see if this formulation pleases you:I think getting rid of all GPL-incompatible licenses would, at this stage of the OSS struggle, result in less open source software, FSVO 'open'. So in other words, my priority is on getting people who write code to make it somewhat free (in the sense of "open", not in the sense of "cost"), even if it isn't as free as the GPL. In that sense I feel I am also trying to increase freedom, because I currently see the alternative as being more closed-source, proprietary software. Obviously you are welcome to an opposing viewpoint.
Carthago delenda est sed Apache non Carthago est Posted Jun 17, 2004 16:01 UTC (Thu) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] Ok, ok, apologies accepted. But you're wrong in saying that I deliberately ignored your point: I've dedicated whole point "2. (...)" above to addressing it. Now that we have finished with "you said I said" games (I hope), lets get to the core of the matter. So in other words, my priority is on getting people who write code to make it somewhat free (in the sense of "open", not in the sense of "cost"), even if it isn't as free as the GPL. In that sense I feel I am also trying to increase freedom, because I currently see the alternative as being more closed-source, proprietary software. My experience proves otherwise. Once people decided to release the source under whatever license, they are already over the fence, in the sense that they're not very likely to back away from releasing it at all. If they are told (with polite and convincing arguments) that the license they've chosen is wrong, they are much more likely to release under a better license than not to release at all. OTOH, once considerable amount of time has passed since the release, it becomes much more difficult to change the license to a better one. Thus, if the final goal is to get as much software as possible under as free licenses as possible, being careful about choosing a right license from the very start is more effective than the "schmicence" attitude. And finally, please allow me to brainwash you about the words you use. After all, Orwell was right and our words do infuence our thoughts. "Open" is a wrong word as it implies that you can look, but not necessarily can touch (as in patents which are open just fine). Freedom should also include the right to touch and even to take it and walk away with it.
|
|||||||||||||