Re: [E-devel] License questions

[Jose G. <jos...@ju...>]

Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 July 2008, at 08:33:13 (-0400),
> Jose Gonzalez wrote:
>
>   
>> Personally, I'd *never* contribute anything that I'd consider to be
>> a truly serious, dedicated, body of time and work to a project that
>> wan't LGPL or GPL.  But that's just me.
>>     
>
> Fortunately most are more open-minded than that.  :)
>
>   

      Good for you! :)


>> They're not 'stealing' anything. The code was given to them to do
>> with as they see fit under the terms allowed by the license. And in
>> the case of a BSD/MIT style license they can use it directly or
>> indirectly (among other things) but aren't required to contribute
>> back anything, or make original source or any changes available to
>> anyone if they so choose.
>>     
>
> Perhaps a better term would be "leeching."
>
> As with the law, there is the "letter" of the license and the "spirit"
> of the license.  While you are correct about the "letter" of the
> license, the clear and obvious spirit of BSD licensing is free and
> unrestricted sharing which bypasses this whole ridiculous license
> debate quite nicely.
>
> Furthermore, there are specific requirements associated with the
> license which are sometimes not followed:  the advertising clause.
> And if they don't follow *that*, they *are* stealing.
>
> Having said all that, here's the bottom line:  When we first discussed
> licensing at length, somewhere around 1997 or 1998, we wanted a
> license that encapsulated our feelings on the subject:  "We don't give
> a rat's ass what you do with this code so long as you give credit
> where it's due."  The BSD license with the advertising clause was the
> most free and open license we could find which still required proper
> attribution.
>
> Last time I spoke with raster about it, he still felt the same way.
> External projects and products, especially those run by commercial
> entities, are likely and welcome to use the license of their own
> choosing, but we ask that all contributions to E and "official" E
> subprojects be licensed under the same BSD+AC license as E itself.
>
> Maybe that will change someday.  Who knows.  But last time I went
> earnestly looking for a better license, I couldn't find one.  They all
> fell short in some significant way.  (Or many ways, in the case of the
> GPL...ironically the least free and most binding-and-gagging license
> out there, short of closed source.)
>
> Michael
>
>   
      This issue is a long and complex one, and I really have no desire to
get into the specifics of it. You and Nathan and Carsten and maybe many others,
may feel comfortable with your decisions and choices, and that's fine with
me :) I just happen not to share in this view and have made my own decision.



____________________________________________________________
Explore all of Europe's beauty! Click now for great vacation packages!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3nKHMPrUmz1SiB7Mvuu2CLt9TX16ZHsmdgDSFX1wjKn8iB5W/