Re: silc license change before v1.0 ?

[Juraj B. <ju...@be...>]

Hello,

> Q: What's wrong with the GPL?
> A: This is a legitimate question, but the answer is obvious. When the toolkit is licensed
> under the GPL, it may not be used to create anything but GPL licensed software. This will
> seriously prevent adaption from other projects. A dedicated silc client *must* currently
> be licensed under the GPL. Do we want it to be impossible to create commercial or
> closed-source silc clients, or for that matter, a less restrictive client licensed under
> for instance the MIT license? Because that is our current situation.

The standards are free, they could very easily write a client, that
conform to the standard. 

If they use Pekka's and other's code, they can just contribute. Anyways,
I feel having a proper independent (even commercial) implementation of
the protocol _NOT_ based on the Silc Toolkit.

This way -- all the people have to contribute their changes back, if
they make use and distribute the code. 

> 
> Q: Ok, can't we just use LGPL?
> A: Most people asking this question hasn't actually read GPL or LGPL, and assume the LGPL
> is just GPL without the clause about dependency. This is wrong. It's got it's own
> additional quirks. Some of them won't even hold up in court in most civilized countries.
> :-)

In our courts, neither MIT license or any other Free Software license
won't hold up.

Still, you make an assumption about ,,holding up''. For this to happen,
there must be someone to actually try it there :). The question is --
why?

> Q: So you're saying GPL/LGPL is bad? Isn't that just unconstructive?
> A: No, it's not bad, it's just that most people doesn't understand it, and blindly use it
> as many places as they can because they think it makes the world better.

I understand, have read and use it for most of my software (I use even
BSD license).

> Q: But many many thousands of programmers are using the GPL/LGPL, shouldn't we?
> A: There are reasons to use GPL/LGPL on some projects. These projects are usually
> standalone applications intended to be replacements for commercial products, such as gimp
> and gcc. We are making a reference implementation of the silc protocol, this project in
> its current state is not intended for commercial distribution. If pekka later wants to
> make a commercial program from this, there's nothing stopping him, but that will not be a
> reference implementation. This is.

So the reference implementation should stay free, away from ,,embrace
and extend'' practices of some onnamed proprietary vendors. If they want
to implement proprietary implementation of the protocol, they are free
to do so (and I hope even welcome to do so), but they can't use the
code. If you get something, you should return something. 

> Q: So what license should we use?
> A: Personally, I think the BSD license is a good choice. It's not nazi restrctive and it's
> simple enough for people to be able to read it, and more importantly, understand it.

While I personally use *BSD systems, I don't think this is good for the
project in it's present state.

> Q: Why are you constantly reffering to "we" when it's pekka's project.
> A: Isn't the spirit of GPL to be a community about the project? ;) Seriously though, I see
> silc as a community effort, even though pekka does most of the actual coding.

Well, I think it's on pekka to decide, but I personally (I have my
feelings about it too, since I like the SILC project -- I talk about it
just like you do -- I hope this is a good place for such discussions, if
not, please privately tell me not to comment :) feel, that current
licensing is nice. I will probably, in a later time, even use the
project commercialy (I have some plans too), but I _STILL_ want it to
stay GNU GPL (and of course I will contribute any changes I make). 

Anyways, you are trying to solve some ,,problem''. So please state what
are the symptoms. Is there a project you want to base on silc libraries?
I don't see the point here, you are trying to solve something, that not
many of us perceive as a problem. So where is the actual problem? GNU
GPL not tested in court? Why should it matter, Pekka is doing the coding
in Finland and there's no precendent-based law there. Not allowing
proprietary modifications of the libraries? What's the problem? No
,,embrace and extend'' practices and if someone makes compliant
implementation, it is good for the project. If not, it will simply not
be ,,silc''.




 Juraj.