url parsing

[Jim Ley]

Re: url parsing

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:14:55 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@we b.de> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Jim Ley wrote:[color=green]
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Why reinventing the wheel, check out JSX:search.js, it's for free.
>>> The only thing you are required to respect is the GPL. And please
>>> copy and distribute it then.[/color]
>>
>> Fully agree with not re-inventing the wheel, but I'd strongly
>> recommend finding something other than a GPL solution, all you script
>> would then have to be GPL'd.[/color]
>
>And the problem is?[/color]

The problem with GPL?

|b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole
|or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to
|be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms
|of this License.

So if I use a bit of GPL in my script, the whole script becomes GPL'd

|c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when
|run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use
|in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement
|including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is
|no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that
|users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and
| telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception:
| if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such
|an announcement, your work based on the Program is not
|required to print an announcement.)

Which is rather alarming (you might be able to argue the snippet was
interactive but didn't print an announcement, but I think that would
be a struggle in many cases.)

basically the GPL makes it hard to sell a whole work, even if only 1%
of your codebase is GPL, then you have to give everyone a RF licence.
I don't like this, I don't feel it's fair.

All my sourcecode that is not copyright someone else, is under a
modified BSD licence, this is much friendlier, and I would encourage
others to use the same or similar if they want an Open source licence.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

[Fabian]

Re: url parsing

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn hu kiteb:
[color=blue]
> Fabian wrote:[color=green]
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn hu kiteb:[color=darkred]
>>> ... Why reinventing the
>>> wheel, check out JSX:search.js, it's for free. The only thing you
>>> are required to respect is the GPL. And please copy and distribute
>>> it then.[/color]
>>
>> The GPL is why I won't use it, [...][/color]
>
> What exactly are you afraid of?[/color]

Kind of weird to explain. For me, javascript and html is a hobby. I get
more pleasure out of the process of building the stuff than from
actually having the completed thing in front of me. Taking smething
pre-built wholesale defeats both of those goals. It also means I don't
understand the code I end up using so well. I appreciate pointers and
advice; the one thing I don't want is for the answer to be given to me.

I also have this mad dream that one day I may be able to use some of my
code
on a commercial basis, which would also ot be possible with GPL code.


--
--
Fabian
Visit my website often and for long periods!

http://www.lajzar.co.uk

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: url parsing

Jim Ley wrote:
[color=blue]
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:[color=green]
>>Jim Ley wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Why reinventing the wheel, check out JSX:search.js, it's for free.
>>>> The only thing you are required to respect is the GPL. And please
>>>> copy and distribute it then.
>>>
>>> Fully agree with not re-inventing the wheel, but I'd strongly
>>> recommend finding something other than a GPL solution, all you script
>>> would then have to be GPL'd.[/color]
>>
>>And the problem is?[/color]
>
> The problem with GPL?
>
> |b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole
> |or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to
> |be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms
> |of this License.[/color]

You destroyed the context. It reads:

| When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
| price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
| have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
| this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
| if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
| in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
| [...]
|
| TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
| [...]
| 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
| of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
| distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
| above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
|
| [...]
| b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
| whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
| part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
| parties under the terms of this License.

It means that the license must be free of charge, not the program.
[color=blue]
> So if I use a bit of GPL in my script, the whole script becomes GPL'd[/color]

If used in a whole, yes.
[color=blue]
> |c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when
> |run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use
> |in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement
> |including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is
> |no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that
> |users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and
> | telling the user how to view a copy of this License.(Except ion:
> | if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such
> |an announcement, your work based on the Program is not
> |required to print an announcement.)
>
> Which is rather alarming (you might be able to argue the snippet was
> interactive but didn't print an announcement, but I think that would
> be a struggle in many cases.)[/color]

The above section obviously does not apply for JavaScript scripts.
[color=blue]
> basically the GPL makes it hard to sell a whole work,[/color]

It does not.
[color=blue]
> even if only 1% of your codebase is GPL, then you have to give everyone
> a RF licence.[/color]

That's the idea. But they are not allowed to sell work based
on your ideas without mentioning your co-authorship.
[color=blue]
> I don't like this, I don't feel it's fair.[/color]

What is not fair about it? That others can use your work and
can modify it, provided that they still mention your authorship?
You got the wrong idea about free software.
[color=blue]
> I would encourage others to use the same or similar if they want an
> Open source licence.[/color]

There is a difference between free software and Open Source software.
That difference is freedom. http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html


PointedEars

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: url parsing

Fabian wrote:
[color=blue]
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn hu kiteb:[color=green]
>> Fabian wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> The GPL is why I won't use it, [...][/color]
>>
>> What exactly are you afraid of?[/color]
>
> Kind of weird to explain. For me, javascript and html is a hobby. I get
> more pleasure out of the process of building the stuff than from
> actually having the completed thing in front of me. Taking smething
> pre-built wholesale defeats both of those goals. It also means I don't
> understand the code I end up using so well. I appreciate pointers and
> advice; the one thing I don't want is for the answer to be given to me.[/color]

I can accept that.
[color=blue]
> I also have this mad dream that one day I may be able to use some of my
> code on a commercial basis, which would also ot be possible with GPL code.[/color]

I cannot accept that since it is of course wrong.
Read http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html


PointedEars

[Jim Ley]

Re: url parsing

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:36:14 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@we b.de> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Jim Ley wrote:
>| b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
>| whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
>| part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
>| parties under the terms of this License.
>
>It means that the license must be free of charge, not the program.[/color]

What? So you're saying I can sell copies of GPL software as long as I
don't sell the licence, just the software itself. (which I can't of
course sell as I don't own the parts I didn't write, I only have a
licence to use it...) I think you should consult a lawyer...
[color=blue][color=green]
>> So if I use a bit of GPL in my script, the whole script becomes GPL'd[/color]
>
>If used in a whole, yes.[/color]

How can it be used in a part but not the whole, please explain?
[color=blue]
>The above section obviously does not apply for JavaScript scripts.[/color]

Please cite legal opinion on this, preferably in a UK or European
court. I'm afraid I see nothing in the GPL which exclued javascript
from any part of it.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> basically the GPL makes it hard to sell a whole work,[/color]
>
>It does not.[/color]

Could you explain how I can achieve it then?
[color=blue]
>That's the idea. But they are not allowed to sell work based
>on your ideas without mentioning your co-authorship.[/color]

That sounds like a BSD licence to me, not a GPL one.
[color=blue]
>What is not fair about it? That others can use your work and
>can modify it, provided that they still mention your authorship?
>You got the wrong idea about free software.[/color]

Nope, that's a BSD (or similar) licence, the GPL licence requires that
my modifications/additions etc. are also GPL'd, that's restrictive.
[color=blue]
>There is a difference between free software and Open Source software.
>That difference is freedom. http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html[/color]

What are you talking about? the BSD licence is far less restrictive
than the GPL, if you also read further than the page you cited, you'll
see that the BSD is fully compatible with the GPL...

http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

Re: url parsing

jim@jibbering.c om (Jim Ley) writes:

Ok, I'll just answer this thread once, and start out saying that it's
off topic (highly interesting, though, but probably not to everyone
who is here for Javascript).
[color=blue]
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:36:14 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> <PointedEars@we b.de> wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>It means that the license must be free of charge, not the program.[/color]
>
> What? So you're saying I can sell copies of GPL software as long as I
> don't sell the licence, just the software itself. (which I can't of
> course sell as I don't own the parts I didn't write, I only have a
> licence to use it...) I think you should consult a lawyer...[/color]

I don't know what selling the license would entail, but yes, you can
sell copies of GPL'ed software. You don't need permission, the right
to distribute, even for money, is part of the GPL. The GPL is *not*
a license to *use* the software. It is a license to use the source,
make derivative programs, and distribute these as you see fit. The
catch is that you must also release the source of your derivative
under the GPL.

That is, you cannot distribute (for money or not) a program and refuse
to reveal the source. For an interpreted language, that is not really
a restriction, since all programs are distributed as source (unless
you obfuscate the source, then you must reveal unobfuscated source).

<URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTh eGPLAllowMoney>
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> basically the GPL makes it hard to sell a whole work,[/color]
>>
>>It does not.[/color]
>
> Could you explain how I can achieve it then?[/color]

Effectively, no. You are free to take money from the software.
You can't prevent other people from spreading it for free.

So, it's not hard to sell a whole work. What is hard is to make
money from it, unless you have a secondary means of income
(typically, that would be selling support for the product,
like, e.g., RedHat).

....[color=blue][color=green]
>>There is a difference between free software and Open Source software.
>>That difference is freedom. http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html[/color]
>
> What are you talking about?[/color]

Did you follow the link? I think that page makes it quite clear.

Whether you care about whether the program is free software or
just open source, that is another matter.
[color=blue]
> the BSD licence is far less restrictive than the GPL,[/color]

Yes. That is why the (modified) BSD license is not a copyleft license.
It doesn't enforce that derivative works are also free.
[color=blue]
> if you also read further than the page you cited, you'll see that
> the BSD is fully compatible with the GPL...[/color]

Yes. That means that you can include a module released under the BSD
license in a program covered by the GPL. The resulting program is
covered by the GPL license, and the included part also by the BSD
license.

Some licenses are not compatible with the GPL. Including a module
licensed under one of these in a GPL program would be in violation
of either that license or the GPL.

Being compatible does not mean that the lincense is a copyleft
license.

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lrn@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleD OM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

[Jim Ley]

Re: url parsing

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:46:58 +0100, Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
<lrn@hotpop.com > wrote:
[color=blue]
>I don't know what selling the license would entail, but yes, you can
>sell copies of GPL'ed software. You don't need permission, the right
>to distribute, even for money, is part of the GPL.[/color]

Yes, the right to distribute for money, not the right to sell for
money (the distinction is in what the purchaser can do with the
product, and what they own.) Most of my work is done on a "work for
hire" basis where what I produce is owned and copyright by the person
who pays for my time (either because I'm an employee, or because the
contract states this) if I use a GPL part, then whilst they may own
it, there's very little protection for their IP as they have to
distribute full source and can only charge distribution costs. (which
since it's client side JS someone can just download it from the side
for free.)
[color=blue]
>The
>catch is that you must also release the source of your derivative
>under the GPL.[/color]

Which is one hell of a catch!

As you can only sell it once before you have competitors (since the
person you sell it to can then also sell it since they have a licence
which places no restriction that they don't)

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

So sure I can sell it once, but I can't sell it twice, as the 2nd
customer can just go either download it from the firsts site, or they
could even buy it from them at a lot less than I can do so.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> What are you talking about?[/color]
>
>Did you follow the link? I think that page makes it quite clear.[/color]

The page is clear, but I was trying to understand the context.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> if you also read further than the page you cited, you'll see that
>> the BSD is fully compatible with the GPL...[/color]
>
>Yes. That means that you can include a module released under the BSD
>license in a program covered by the GPL. The resulting program is
>covered by the GPL license, and the included part also by the BSD
>license.[/color]

Yes...
[color=blue]
>Being compatible does not mean that the lincense is a copyleft
>license.[/color]

Who said it was?

Jim.


--
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

[Fabian]

Re: url parsing

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn hu kiteb:

[color=blue][color=green]
>> I also have this mad dream that one day I may be able to use some of
>> my code on a commercial basis, which would also ot be possible with
>> GPL code.[/color]
>
> I cannot accept that since it is of course wrong.
> Read http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html[/color]

As I understand the gpl license, it would be possible for me to sell it
one time, and possibly more if the initial purchaser does not
immediately start distributing it for no money, as would be his right
under that license. As I understand it.


--
--
Fabian
Visit my website often and for long periods!

http://www.lajzar.co.uk

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: url parsing

Fabian wrote:[color=blue]
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn hu kiteb:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> I also have this mad dream that one day I may be able to use some of
>>> my code on a commercial basis, which would also ot be possible with
>>> GPL code.[/color]
>>
>> I cannot accept that since it is of course wrong.
>> Read http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html[/color]
>
> As I understand the gpl license, it would be possible for me to sell it
> one time, and possibly more if the initial purchaser does not
> immediately start distributing it for no money, as would be his right
> under that license. As I understand it.[/color]

You misunderstood it, read Lasse's good clarification.
The GPL is not about money, it is about the freedom to
use the source code.


F'up2 poster

PointedEars

[Fabian]

Re: url parsing

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn hu kiteb:

[color=blue]
> You misunderstood it, read Lasse's good clarification.
> The GPL is not about money, it is about the freedom to
> use the source code.[/color]

And wouldn't that include the freedom to compile said source code and
sell teh compiled form? That is, after all, using the source code.


--
--
Fabian
Visit my website often and for long periods!

http://www.lajzar.co.uk

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

Re: url parsing

"Fabian" <lajzar@hotmail .com> writes:
[color=blue]
> And wouldn't that include the freedom to compile said source code and
> sell teh compiled form? That is, after all, using the source code.[/color]

Yes, you can do that under the GPL. "All" you are required to do is:
1) include the GPL, and
2) provide the source code to the binary program on demand.

It is not compatible with the traditional business model of software
producers (just selling the software).

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lrn@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleD OM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

[Jim Ley]

Re: url parsing

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:14:10 +0100, Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
<lrn@hotpop.com > wrote:
[color=blue]
>"Fabian" <lajzar@hotmail .com> writes:
>[color=green]
>> And wouldn't that include the freedom to compile said source code and
>> sell teh compiled form? That is, after all, using the source code.[/color]
>
>Yes, you can do that under the GPL. "All" you are required to do is:
>1) include the GPL, and
>2) provide the source code to the binary program on demand.[/color]

And forbid any derivative works and future modifications to also be
under the GPL.
[color=blue]
>It is not compatible with the traditional business model of software
>producers (just selling the software).[/color]

Neither is compatible with most work carried out as a contractor or a
supplier of completed works, where the contract almost universally
requires that the end result be owned by the purchaser, Seen as most
commercial work in javascript is done on this basis, there is
virtually no chance I would get any work if I used GPL'd components.
I cannot sell it, selling script is more than a licence to use/modify
etc.

I'd love to see the contracts some of you are signing that allow for
GPL code to be provided!

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: url parsing

Jim Ley wrote:
[color=blue]
> [...] Lasse Reichstein Nielsen [...] wrote:[color=green]
>> "Fabian" <lajzar@hotmail .com> writes:[color=darkred]
>>> And wouldn't that include the freedom to compile said source code and
>>> sell teh compiled form? That is, after all, using the source code.[/color]
>>
>> Yes, you can do that under the GPL. "All" you are required to do is:
>> 1) include the GPL, and
>> 2) provide the source code to the binary program on demand.[/color]
>
> And forbid any derivative works and future modifications to also be
> under the GPL.[/color]

No, you cannot do that since it would restrict the freedom of people
using the source code and is thus explicitely forbidden by the GPL itself:

| 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
| Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
| original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program
| subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any
| further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights
| granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance
| by third parties to this License.


PointedEars

[Jim Ley]

Re: url parsing

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:40:13 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@we b.de> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Jim Ley wrote:
>[color=green]
>> [...] Lasse Reichstein Nielsen [...] wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> "Fabian" <lajzar@hotmail .com> writes:
>>>> And wouldn't that include the freedom to compile said source code and
>>>> sell teh compiled form? That is, after all, using the source code.
>>>
>>> Yes, you can do that under the GPL. "All" you are required to do is:
>>> 1) include the GPL, and
>>> 2) provide the source code to the binary program on demand.[/color]
>>
>> And forbid any derivative works and future modifications to also be
>> under the GPL.[/color]
>
>No, you cannot do that since it would restrict the freedom of people
>using the source code and is thus explicitely forbidden by the GPL itself:[/color]

Exactly, so I cannot SELL the product, all I can do is sell the use of
the product under the restrictions the GPL gives, that's different
from selling it.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/