"Ben Chambers" <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message news:...
>
> "Ole Laursen" <ola### [at] hardworkingdk> wrote in message
> news:87h### [at] bachcomposers...
> > > If someone is willing to invest the time/money to make a product that
> > > uses CSDL, I would have nothing against them charging for their
product
> > > or withholding the source code for their work, as long as they make
any
> > > changes/enhancements to CSDL available. People will only buy it if it
is
> > > better than the free stuff, and if the developer makes something
better,
> > > I'll thank them.
> >
> > Follow your heart. :-)
> >
> > But I think it would be wise to choose a GPL-compatible license.
>
> Sorry I'm jumping in the middle, but I only just started reading this
> thread...
>
> IIRC, the LGPL should work.  The way I read it (and I hope someone
corrects
> me if I'm wrong), you can make a commercial product available using
> something LGPL'd, but you have to provide object binaries to link against
> newer versions of whatever LGPL'd stuff is there (though you don't have to
> guarantee compatability with future versions).  Now, as I see it, dynamic
> linking already provides this functionality so, if you distribute your
> program in a form that uses dynamic linking, you're ok.  Although, I'm not
a
> lawyer, so I'd like someone to correct me if I'm wrong...
>
> ...Chambers
>
>

Post a reply to this message

In article <3c50e445@news.povray.org>,
 "Ben Chambers" <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

> IIRC, the LGPL should work.  The way I read it (and I hope someone 
> corrects me if I'm wrong), you can make a commercial product 
> available using something LGPL'd, but you have to provide object 
> binaries to link against newer versions of whatever LGPL'd stuff is 
> there (though you don't have to guarantee compatability with future 
> versions).  Now, as I see it, dynamic linking already provides this 
> functionality so, if you distribute your program in a form that uses 
> dynamic linking, you're ok.  Although, I'm not a lawyer, so I'd like 
> someone to correct me if I'm wrong...

Well, it looks interesting, but I'm not sure how it would be better or 
worse than any of the others...
Does anyone have any reasons to *avoid* a particular license? Any input 
at all? I think I've had a total of 3 suggestions, for 3 different 
licenses...the Artistic License, GPL, and LGPL.
The main two licenses I'm considering are the Artistic License and the 
LGPL, and I'm leaning strongly toward the Artistic License, which seems 
generally simpler and more understandable.

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

Post a reply to this message

Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> writes:
> Does anyone have any reasons to *avoid* a particular license? Any input 
> at all? I think I've had a total of 3 suggestions, for 3 different 
> licenses...the Artistic License, GPL, and LGPL.

Well, avoid GPL-incompatible licenses. :-) If you leave out all the
GPL-incompatible licenses from

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

it still gives you a lot to choose from. The X11 and BSD ones are
basically some sort of "public domain" license, as I understand it,
and are as such OK if you aren't interested in protecting your code
(but it seems you are).

The reason for choosing a GPL-compatible license is that else people
working on GPL'ed projects (and most free software is GPL'ed) can't
legally use your code - so you risk eternal complaints (or even a
clone project with the sole purpose of replacing the license).

The Freetype project apparently dual licenses their library just to
avoid this situation, Trolltech did the same with Qt for KDE and the
Mozilla project is currently also walking along that path. But dual
licensing is a mess, IMHO.

So according to the list on gnu.org I would avoid what they describe
as the original Artistic License. LGPL is simply GPL with the
permission to link with proprietary, closed software, so if that is
what you want, I'd recommend it instead. When you're using an
FSF-blessed license, you're also absolutely sure to stay out of
trouble. :-)

> The main two licenses I'm considering are the Artistic License and the 
> LGPL, and I'm leaning strongly toward the Artistic License, which seems 
> generally simpler and more understandable.

I think you're underestimating how widely known the LGPL is compared
to the Artistic License. A lot of people probably wouldn't ever need
to read the license if you choose the LGPL.

But then again, most people probably wouldn't even look at the
license, anyway... ;-)

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

Post a reply to this message

In article <chr### [at] netplexaussieorg> , 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>  wrote:

> Well, it looks interesting, but I'm not sure how it would be better or
> worse than any of the others...
> Does anyone have any reasons to *avoid* a particular license? Any input
> at all? I think I've had a total of 3 suggestions, for 3 different
> licenses...the Artistic License, GPL, and LGPL.
> The main two licenses I'm considering are the Artistic License and the
> LGPL, and I'm leaning strongly toward the Artistic License, which seems
> generally simpler and more understandable.

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

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.

    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

In article <3c51e47a@news.povray.org>,
 "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:

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

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.

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

Post a reply to this message

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

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> writes:
> 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.

It is true that FSF is a very political organization (and you're wrong
saying that RMS has turned it into that - it has always been that way,
after all, Stallman founded it!). But implying that he runs the show
like a dictator is something you really don't know about. I believe in
the free software model, but I don't worship Richard Stallman as a god
(Emacs is the only True god, remember?).

It's obvious that you don't like Stallman, but please don't let it
influence your attitude towards the free software model and GNU.
That's just silly. I don't hate you, and there's no reason you should
hate me because I find free software and the GPL attractive, is there?

> 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).

I don't know anything about that case, but if you think you can get
RMS to agree to a license which would prevent the software from being
free, you're out of your mind. :-)

Besides, you're implying that RMS wants to prohibit people from
earning money - but that's wrong as long as the software stays free.

> Many of his other statements over the years are legally questionable
> and close to libel.

Which ones, may I ask? I think you'll find it difficult to find any.
Voicing your opinion about licensing issues aren't illegal, you know.
And I think your statement above is actually much closer 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?

I remember it (i.e. the report of it), and I agree it was silly. But he
still has the right to voice his opinion - after all the POV-Team
isn't sacred. I just wish he had sent a polite email instead. But I
hope it isn't going to affect the license decision if the license is
going to change for Povray 4. Punishing everyone because of one man's
silly deed is equally silly IMHO.

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

Richard Stallman is going to defend your rights to his death if you
choose the GNU GPL for your software. Do you question that?

But this thread is going OT. It was supposed to give advice on
licensing, not discussing RMS's merits.

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

Post a reply to this message

"Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg> writes:
> > 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?

He pointed his thumb downwards as he passed the Povray booth.

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

Post a reply to this message

> He pointed his thumb downwards as he passed the Povray booth.

Grrr....! Down with Stallman!

Post a reply to this message

"Ole Laursen" <ola### [at] hardworkingdk> wrote in message
news:87l### [at] bachcomposers...
> hope it isn't going to affect the license decision if the license is
> going to change for Povray 4.

Why would it change?  It's clear and effective.  If it ain't broke, don't
fix it!

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

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

I did :-(


--

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 <87p### [at] bachcomposers>,
 Ole Laursen <ola### [at] hardworkingdk> wrote:

> Of course. But that's not what the GPL is about. License violation is
> common.

Doesn't make it right...and I'd prefer a license that doesn't make 
companies think they have to go to these lengths to use it while 
protecting their own code. As far as I'm concerned, they have the right 
to do whatever they want with their own code, unless it's a modification 
of CSDL that they are distributing. The GPL seems to be intended to 
force every piece of code to be GPL'd.


> Did you pay for your copy of Windows? :-)

No, but there's a very good reason for that... ;-)
I did pay for my copy of Mac OS X.

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

Post a reply to this message

In article <3c54f538@news.povray.org>,
 "Ben Chambers" <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

> Why would it change?  It's clear and effective.  If it ain't broke, don't
> fix it!

It's also a bit more restrictive than it needs to be. The POV-Team has 
been considering a more flexible one for quite some time now:
http://www.povray.org/3.5-status.html

I've gotten the impression that the existing license is as restrictive 
as it is mainly because of the way some of the contributions to the 
source code have been made. People only gave permission for their code 
(which might also have been used in some commercial product) to be used 
in POV-Ray, so releasing it under an Open Source license is impossible, 
another reason for the 4.0 rewrite. However, this is just my personal 
recollection, not an official statement...

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

Post a reply to this message

In article <87l### [at] bachcomposers> , Ole Laursen 
<ola### [at] hardworkingdk>  wrote:

>> Many of his other statements over the years are legally questionable
>> and close to libel.
>
> Which ones, may I ask? I think you'll find it difficult to find any.
> Voicing your opinion about licensing issues aren't illegal, you know.
> And I think your statement above is actually much closer to libel. :-)

He has been kicked out of various discussions because of the way he
expresses his opinion.  At the very least his gesture is one example, so I
am very well covered!

>> 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?
>
> I remember it (i.e. the report of it), and I agree it was silly. But he
> still has the right to voice his opinion - after all the POV-Team
> isn't sacred.

His gesture has several implications.  Back in the days of the Roman Empire
the gesture could mean a death sentence.  See it whatever way you want, but
threatening physical injury (also he probably did not mean it this way) is
no longer free expression of an opinion.

    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

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> [...]

But it should be mentioned that there are also more agreeable persons at
the FSF, i have heard Bob Chassell in the past and found his speeches
quite objective and free of unnecessary religious doctrines.

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> writes:
> > Of course. But that's not what the GPL is about. License violation is
> > common.
> 
> Doesn't make it right...

No, not at all, I was just attacking a flawed argument. :-)

> and I'd prefer a license that doesn't make companies think they have
> to go to these lengths to use it while protecting their own code. As
> far as I'm concerned, they have the right to do whatever they want
> with their own code, unless it's a modification of CSDL that they
> are distributing. The GPL seems to be intended to force every piece
> of code to be GPL'd.

Yes, and since you feel like that, GPL'ing your work would of course
be nonsensical. (LGPL is an entirely different matter though, but
still it's your choice.) I'm glad you seem to be convinced to use a
license which makes your software free - the rest is just details
(some of which it is worth getting right, such as being
GPL-compatible, but mostly just details).

> > Did you pay for your copy of Windows? :-)
> 
> No, but there's a very good reason for that... ;-)
> I did pay for my copy of Mac OS X.

It seems I'm not too lucky with my examples...

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

Post a reply to this message