wxPython Licence vs GPL

[Martin P. Hellwig]

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano wrote:
<cut>[color=blue]
> I'm FREE to use the software, FREE to redistribute it, FREE to give it
> away, FREE to make derivative works, FREE to transfer the licence, *and*
> I got it FREE of cost as well, but that doesn't make it free.
>[/color]

Indeed, when I explain GPL to non-techies and what their (RMS)
interpretation of free software is I usually ask first if they know what
IP (Intellectual Property not Internet Protocol) is and what the
difference is between that and other legals stuff like Copyright and
Trademarks.

Then I make sure we have the same definition about Software and what I
mean with the word Public in the context of software.

After that I define GPL as:
Obligatory Public Intellectual Property Software

If the non-techie is still interested, I'll rave on about that I
understand why GPL is a good way to ensure availability of IP especially
if the software is a collaborated effort in the academic scene.
And that I probably use that if I made software for my employer (a
Foundation founded by multiple High-Schools) but that deeply personal
I'll stick to the beerware license, because I fully agree on PHK license
vision.

--
mph

[Steven D'Aprano]

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:26:36 -0800, bonono@gmail.co m wrote:
[color=blue]
> As for the liability, that is for sure, withness what is happening for
> the linux kernel.[/color]

What is happening for the Linux kernel?


--
Steven.

[Peter Hansen]

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano wrote:[color=blue]
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:26:36 -0800, bonono@gmail.co m wrote:[color=green]
>>As for the liability, that is for sure, withness what is happening for
>>the linux kernel.[/color]
>
> What is happening for the Linux kernel?[/color]

The confidence of some of its (potential? gullible?) users in their
ability to use it without being sued is being eroded by crafty negative
marketing by Microsoft and others.

-Peter

[bonono@gmail.com]

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL


Peter Hansen wrote:[color=blue]
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:[color=green]
> > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:26:36 -0800, bonono@gmail.co m wrote:[color=darkred]
> >>As for the liability, that is for sure, withness what is happening for
> >>the linux kernel.[/color]
> >
> > What is happening for the Linux kernel?[/color]
>
> The confidence of some of its (potential? gullible?) users in their
> ability to use it without being sued is being eroded by crafty negative
> marketing by Microsoft and others.
>[/color]
I meant the SCO saga, don't know if you are referring the same thing.

[Jorge Godoy]

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

"bonono@gmail.c om" <bonono@gmail.c om> writes:
[color=blue]
> I meant the SCO saga, don't know if you are referring the same thing.[/color]

Probably. MS bought some shares from SCO to help financing the lawsuit.

Anyway, I don't see much people worrying about it and in fact, I see more
people laughing about SCO's mistakes and wrong information / facts...

--
Jorge Godoy <godoy@ieee.org >

[Paul Boddie]

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Ed Jensen wrote:

[On closed source derivatives of Python]
[color=blue]
> I'm aware of this concern. I don't think it's justified. Unless
> you'd like to point out all those closed, proprietary Python
> implementations that are destroying civilization as we know it.[/color]

Well, there was some concern voiced at EuroPython that a certain large
software-patent-lobbying organisation wouldn't release the shiny port
of Python that they'd done for their mobile telephone products. Now,
one can either emulate that well-practised foot-stamping routine of
yours...
[color=blue]
> Wah, wah, I gave this software away for free, and people are actually
> using it without giving anything back! Wah, wah![/color]

....or one can question the suitability or otherwise of the Python
licence. Since licences define the type of sharing and community around
a project, one has to be careful in choosing a licence in order to get
the kind of sharing and community that one wants.

In another recent licensing spat, some people are apparently unhappy
with one Python-related project's use of the GPL, since the code they
originally contributed to an older, related project ends up being
redistributed under the GPL in the former project whereas the latter
project cannot redistribute the former project's original code without
putting a GPL licence on the distributed work. Now, if the latter
project, with its advantage of having come into existence first had
chosen a GPL-incompatible licence, it's quite possible that they would
have avoided the situation that some seem to bemoan, but then one has
to consider the likelihood that people actually do want GPL
compatibility in their favourite open source projects.

My point about the freeloading was that business understandably likes
to do it. I don't feel any sympathy for participants in various Apache
projects that are hugely popular in business, for example, if those
participants dislike the lack of contributions from those companies
using their software to make money, because those who founded those
projects made a conscious licensing decision and that decision defines
the kind of sharing (or otherwise) around such projects.
[color=blue]
> I never said anything was being "pushed on" me. I never said anything
> was being "imposed on" me. I said an agenda was being pushed.
> Stallman and company have an agenda, and the GPL is their instrument
> of choice for pushing that agenda.[/color]

So if you're not personally affected, as you claim, why does it bother
you?

Paul

[Mike Meyer]

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

"Martin P. Hellwig" <mhellwig@xs4al l.nl> writes:[color=blue]
> If the non-techie is still interested, I'll rave on about that I
> understand why GPL is a good way to ensure availability of IP
> especially if the software is a collaborated effort in the academic
> scene.[/color]

Your comment about the GPL "ensuring availability" would imply that
other-licensed software has a tendency to become unavailable. Do you
know of any examples of such?

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.or g> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

[Martin P. Hellwig]

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Mike Meyer wrote:[color=blue]
> "Martin P. Hellwig" <mhellwig@xs4al l.nl> writes:[color=green]
>> If the non-techie is still interested, I'll rave on about that I
>> understand why GPL is a good way to ensure availability of IP
>> especially if the software is a collaborated effort in the academic
>> scene.[/color]
>
> Your comment about the GPL "ensuring availability" would imply that
> other-licensed software has a tendency to become unavailable. Do you
> know of any examples of such?
>
> <mike[/color]

Yes, it happens on a regular bases that *BSD's are ported to a
particular platform or devices and that the necessary changes to make it
work that way are not released back (eg Ironport mail systems). Other
examples are extensions of other software to fill a particular need that
are kept close for a binary only sale (eg Mammoth PostgreSQL +
Replication).

There are numerous other examples, most of them are "company secrets".

Note that I do not have any objections to it, if I owned a company
making profit on software sales (sale =! support) you sign a death wish
for using GPL, if it's coupled with a device then things are different.
If you sell support, GPL is a wonderful way to maximize your income.

--
mph

[Mike Meyer]

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

"Martin P. Hellwig" <mhellwig@xs4al l.nl> writes:[color=blue][color=green]
>> "Martin P. Hellwig" <mhellwig@xs4al l.nl> writes:[color=darkred]
>>> If the non-techie is still interested, I'll rave on about that I
>>> understand why GPL is a good way to ensure availability of IP
>>> especially if the software is a collaborated effort in the academic
>>> scene.[/color]
>> Your comment about the GPL "ensuring availability" would imply that
>> other-licensed software has a tendency to become unavailable. Do you
>> know of any examples of such?[/color]
> Yes, it happens on a regular bases that *BSD's are ported to a
> particular platform or devices and that the necessary changes to make
> it work that way are not released back (eg Ironport mail
> systems). Other examples are extensions of other software to fill a
> particular need that are kept close for a binary only sale (eg Mammoth
> PostgreSQL + Replication).[/color]

Is that software really unavailable, or just unavailable for free? If
the latter, then it's not unavailabe. If the former, the it didn't
become unavailable, as it was never available in the first place.
In the latter case, you could also use those examples to similarly
"prove" that non-GPL'ed software is a "good way to ensure the
availability of IP", as the developers of those IPs obviously felt
that the ability to restrict distribution in some way was needed to
make the effort of developing and distributing the software in the
first place worthwhile.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.or g> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

[Martin P. Hellwig]

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Mike Meyer wrote:
<cut>[color=blue]
>
> Is that software really unavailable, or just unavailable for free? If
> the latter, then it's not unavailabe. If the former, the it didn't
> become unavailable, as it was never available in the first place.
> In the latter case, you could also use those examples to similarly
> "prove" that non-GPL'ed software is a "good way to ensure the
> availability of IP", as the developers of those IPs obviously felt
> that the ability to restrict distribution in some way was needed to
> make the effort of developing and distributing the software in the
> first place worthwhile.
>[/color]

I agree that your opinions are based on a valid points, however, not
available for free means it has a price tag, which means that a normal
'small' price tag for western society excludes +75% of the world
population for that product (sure most of them don't want/need it
anyway, what good is software without hardware).

Those who can not afford the software are excluded for that end product
even though they may have worked on the source where 99,99% of the
restricted licensed software is based on.

However I make a poor defender for the GPL because, as you can read in
my previous posts, I don't really believe in it.

--
mph

[Mike Meyer]

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

"Martin P. Hellwig" <mhellwig@xs4al l.nl> writes:[color=blue]
> Those who can not afford the software are excluded for that end
> product even though they may have worked on the source where 99,99% of
> the restricted licensed software is based on.[/color]

Well, they chose to make it available to others for reuse. But
software "unavailabl e to those who can't afford it" is better than "no
software at all"
[color=blue]
> However I make a poor defender for the GPL because, as you can read in
> my previous posts, I don't really believe in it.[/color]

The question is wether or not it believes in you :-)

I believe in GPL'ed software - I use it regularly. On the other hand,
I don't believe that it represents the best license to release
software if the goal is to improve the lot of humanity. The
restrictions are on "distributi on", not on use, so it doesn't really
keep people from using said software commercially. For instance, one
or more of your examples may have been worth developing for internal
use. They then decided there was a profit to be made in distributing
it commercially, and proceeded to do so because they could. Without
the profit motive, they may not have done the extra work involved in
preparing the IP for distribution and doing the distribution.

Personally, I release stuff under a BSD-like license, historically
having included requirements that I be notified of bug fixes, and/or
that I be given copies of commercial software that included my code. I
eventually gave up on them as unenforceable.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.or g> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

[Martin P. Hellwig]

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Mike Meyer wrote:
<cut>[color=blue]
>
> Well, they chose to make it available to others for reuse. But
> software "unavailabl e to those who can't afford it" is better than "no
> software at all"[/color]

That I do not agree with, I think it depends on which your side of the
fence you are.

For instance I have a specific problem, there are currently 2 product
available that come close to solving it, one costs $24,999 and the other
is above that. That is about $23,999 above what I can afford to solve my
problem, so I have the option to leave the problem as it is or try to
tackle it myself.

Stubborn that I am, I am currently creating my own solution, knowing
well that other solutions exist and I can only make a poor copy of those
already existing effort
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> However I make a poor defender for the GPL because, as you can read in
>> my previous posts, I don't really believe in it.[/color]
>
> The question is wether or not it believes in you :-)
>
> I believe in GPL'ed software - I use it regularly. On the other hand,
> I don't believe that it represents the best license to release
> software if the goal is to improve the lot of humanity. The
> restrictions are on "distributi on", not on use, so it doesn't really
> keep people from using said software commercially. For instance, one
> or more of your examples may have been worth developing for internal
> use. They then decided there was a profit to be made in distributing
> it commercially, and proceeded to do so because they could. Without
> the profit motive, they may not have done the extra work involved in
> preparing the IP for distribution and doing the distribution.[/color]

Yeah well, GPL works reasonable well but perhaps not for what it was
intended.
[color=blue]
>
> Personally, I release stuff under a BSD-like license, historically
> having included requirements that I be notified of bug fixes, and/or
> that I be given copies of commercial software that included my code. I
> eventually gave up on them as unenforceable.[/color]

Thats the trouble with restrictions, how do you enforce them, with
license I don't found it worth the hazzle. BSD/MIT style license is a
good substitute of no license at all.

--
mph

[Mike Meyer]

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

"Martin P. Hellwig" <mhellwig@xs4al l.nl> writes:[color=blue]
> Mike Meyer wrote:
> <cut>[color=green]
>> Well, they chose to make it available to others for reuse. But
>> software "unavailabl e to those who can't afford it" is better than "no
>> software at all"[/color]
> That I do not agree with, I think it depends on which your side of the
> fence you are.[/color]

Actually, I think I underspecified the statement. "Better for who" is
the question. No software is the same as software you can't afford. On
the other hand, so long as the price is lower than the cost of
recreating the software for someone, then it's better for society as a
whole if it exists at all.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.or g> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

[Paul Rubin]

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.or g> writes:[color=blue]
> On the other hand, so long as the price is lower than the cost of
> recreating the software for someone, then it's better for society as
> a whole if it exists at all.[/color]

I don't think that's correct. Having nothing can be better than
having something, because then there's an opening to fill. The price
isn't even an issue: it happens even with free programs. If someone
needs an XYZ program and none exists, maybe they'll write a good one
and release it. But if a bad XYZ program already exists, they'll use
that despite its deficiencies. Thus we have Windows.

[Mike Meyer]

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.i nvalid> writes:[color=blue]
> Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.or g> writes:[color=green]
>> On the other hand, so long as the price is lower than the cost of
>> recreating the software for someone, then it's better for society as
>> a whole if it exists at all.[/color]
> I don't think that's correct. Having nothing can be better than
> having something, because then there's an opening to fill. The price
> isn't even an issue: it happens even with free programs. If someone
> needs an XYZ program and none exists, maybe they'll write a good one
> and release it. But if a bad XYZ program already exists, they'll use
> that despite its deficiencies. Thus we have Windows.[/color]

They'll only use a commmercial program if they can afford it (or are
willing to steal it). And if it's bad enough - in their estimation -
they won't usee it despite it's deficiencies, they'll act as if it
doesn't exist - and maybe write a good one and release it. Thus we
have Linux and the *BSDs.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.or g> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.