In article <877### [at] bachcomposers>,
 Ole Laursen <ola### [at] hardworkingdk> wrote:

> Well, avoid GPL-incompatible licenses. :-)

The Clarified Artistic License is listed as "GPL compatible" on that 
page.

-- 
 -- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>

Post a reply to this message

> Ok, I remember reading something about this...I guess it was sitting at
> the back of my mind, bugging me while refusing to come forward. ;-)
> I'll probably go with the Artistic License, maybe the Clarified Artistic
> License...it seems very reasonable and straightforward.
> I'll avoid the GPL from now on, even if that clause gets removed. I
> don't trust people who would put that kind of thing in the license.

GPL is a cancerous waste pf space, its only real effect has been to stifle
3rd party Linux software. I don't think for one second it has stopped any
unscrupulous developer pinching open source code for inclusion in commercial
projects - afterall who would ever know


--

Rick

Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA

Post a reply to this message

"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote in message
news:3c527a13@news.povray.org...
> > Ok, I remember reading something about this...I guess it was sitting at
> > the back of my mind, bugging me while refusing to come forward. ;-)
> > I'll probably go with the Artistic License, maybe the Clarified Artistic
> > License...it seems very reasonable and straightforward.
> > I'll avoid the GPL from now on, even if that clause gets removed. I
> > don't trust people who would put that kind of thing in the license.
>
> GPL is a cancerous waste pf space, its only real effect has been to stifle
> 3rd party Linux software. I don't think for one second it has stopped any
> unscrupulous developer pinching open source code for inclusion in
commercial
> projects - afterall who would ever know

GPL doesn't even say you can't - they just say you have to include a copy of
the GPL, and tell people where on the Internet they can download the same
thing for free.

...Chambers

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer.  If I am in error, please don't sue me.

Post a reply to this message

"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> writes:
> GPL is a cancerous waste pf space, its only real effect has been to stifle
> 3rd party Linux software. I don't think for one second it has stopped any
> unscrupulous developer pinching open source code for inclusion in commercial
> projects - afterall who would ever know

Well, you are wrong then.

In the short period of time I've been following the free software
world, there has been several incidents. Former employees is one way
of hearing about these things. I think the reason the incidents aren't
widely known is because the FSF has been able to settle all cases
peacefully.

If you don't believe me, try searching Slashdot or one of the other
big news sites for "GPL violation".

However, this is way off-topic.

-- 
Ole Laursen
http://sunsite.dk/olau/

Post a reply to this message

Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> writes:
> In article <877### [at] bachcomposers>,
>  Ole Laursen <ola### [at] hardworkingdk> wrote:
> 
> > Well, avoid GPL-incompatible licenses. :-)
> 
> The Clarified Artistic License is listed as "GPL compatible" on that 
> page.

Yes, so if you intend to use that, I guess everything is fine. :-)

-- 
Ole Laursen
http://sunsite.dk/olau/

Post a reply to this message

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> writes:
> You should avoid the current GPL.

No, you shouldn't. :-)

At least not for the reason given here:

> It allows the FSF to change the license in the future and the
> license allows to apply future licenses to your code rather than the
> GPL license version you decided to use.

No, it doesn't - I think the relevant quote is this:

    9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
  of the General Public License from time to time.  Such new versions will
  be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
  address new problems or concerns.

  Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the Program
  specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
  later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
  either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
  Software Foundation.  If the Program does not specify a version number of
  this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
  Foundation.

So you just have to specify the version number if you think this is a
problem.

> Legally they could even change the GPL to give them exclusive
> copyright or other rights and you could do nothing about it.

Unless you've heard that from a copyright lawyer, I wouldn't even
believe a penny of it. The license specifically says, "Such new
versions will be similar in spirit to the present version...". You
can't just take the copyright away from people without their
permission.

> Note that this provision is new and there was a lot of critzism when this
> new version of the GPL appeared (because RMS forced this condition into it).
> If you really want to use the GPL, use an older version without the "or any
> future GPL" clause.

It is the first time I've seen this brought up as a problem, but OTOH
I haven't been using Linux for more than 2-3 years. It really
surprises me. I guess the clause is in the license to make it possible
to update all licenses easily to respond to new usage situations -
after all the software world changes quickly.

Currently it is somewhat of a grey area whether using embeddable
remote-process components is the same as linking with a library or
not. A future version of the GPL will be able to clarify this issue.
It is in good hands in the FSF - those people really believe in what
they do.


(This is getting somewhat OT, but I don't think it would be fair not
to respond.)

-- 
Ole Laursen
http://sunsite.dk/olau/

Post a reply to this message

> In the short period of time I've been following the free software
> world, there has been several incidents. Former employees is one way
> of hearing about these things. I think the reason the incidents aren't
> widely known is because the FSF has been able to settle all cases
> peacefully.

I think your looking at the tip of the iceberg


--

Rick

Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA

Post a reply to this message

In article <878### [at] bachcomposers> , Ole Laursen 
<ola### [at] hardworkingdk>  wrote:

> It is in good hands in the FSF - those people really believe in what
> they do.

Sure, RMS has turned the FSF into a religious organization fighting
everything that doesn't follow his pure belief!  And of course, he is the
only true god in this religion.

His recent rants include those against PHP4 as you find it on the license
page cited in this thread (because PHPs new license allows its developers to
sell plug-ins for it so they can make a bit of money).  Many of his other
statements over the years are legally questionable and close to libel.  He
has publicly damaged the POV-Team - anybody remembering the incident on some
Linux show a few years go, which was reported somewhere in these groups?

So yes, I am sure he is a trustworthy person!

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

> He has publicly damaged the POV-Team - anybody
> remember the incident on some Linux show a few
> years go, which was reported somewhere in these groups?

I've looked high and low for evidence of this incident, but not found it.
What happened, exactly?

Post a reply to this message

"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> writes:
> > In the short period of time I've been following the free software
> > world, there has been several incidents. Former employees is one way
> > of hearing about these things. I think the reason the incidents aren't
> > widely known is because the FSF has been able to settle all cases
> > peacefully.
> 
> I think your looking at the tip of the iceberg

Of course. But that's not what the GPL is about. License violation is
common. Did you pay for your copy of Windows? :-)

-- 
Ole Laursen
http://sunsite.dk/olau/

Post a reply to this message