Re: [Fresco-devel] Re: ACE

>>>>> "M.Evans" == M Evans <[email protected]> writes:

    >> I'll give you a different scenario: think MegaCorp really likes
    >> the ideas of Fresco and starts working on it so they modify
    >> their version of fresco it's API incompatible with our fresco.
    >> that's perfectly legal with wxwin license, but not with lgpl.

    M.Evans> Since MegaCorp hides their source, who cares about their
    M.Evans> incompatible API?

    M.Evans> This API question only becomes a problem if MegaCorp
    M.Evans> contributes code.  And you can always reject their
    M.Evans> contributions.
        
Right. However, we would like to accept their contributions, wouldn't
we ?  In that case, what's the point in adopting licenses, which
discourage contribution[1] ?

That's the point that most people seem to not understand - using
copylefted software encourages contribution from both sides - from one
side, independent developers, who don't feel quite like being unpaid
employees of MegaCorp, and from the other side, corporate entities,
which are legally required to do so[2].

    M.Evans> MegaCorp could launch a competing open source project
    M.Evans> under their API, but then -- so could any group of purist
    M.Evans> GPL die-hards interested in doing that.  It's not just

That's OK. Competition and free market are THE foundation of the
modern industrial societies. Thus, (L)GPL are THE licenses, which are
most COMMERCE friendly, because they encourage competition and free
the market - with contrast to proprietary licenses, which generally
stiffle the competition and lock the market[3].

    M.Evans> commercial interests that can throw a monkey wrench into
    M.Evans> the works.

Can you give some examples from the history ? Personally, I claim that
independent developers are lot less likely to do forks in an
incompatible manner.

    M.Evans> So I don't see that you've made any coherent argument
    M.Evans> against the actions of MegaCorp.

    M.Evans> I like that name, "MegaCorp" -- nice and evil.  Most

I think recent USA history justifies not only MegaCorp, but EvilCorp,
too.

    M.Evans> programmers in fact work for commercial companies.  I
    M.Evans> know very few working for non-profit organizations. :-) I
    M.Evans> imagine that some of them work for NiceCorp and others
    M.Evans> for FriendlyCorp.  :-)

What's your point ?

    M.Evans> If API compatibility is a concern, then look at the SISSL
    M.Evans> from Sun (it covers OpenOffice and talks about API
    M.Evans> issues).

Err, how can you argue against "restrictions" of (L)GPL and propose a
more restrictive license[4] ?

    M.Evans> The license experts themselves deprecate LGPL.  Take up
    M.Evans> the cudgels with them.....

FSF deprecates LGPL in favor of GPL. And I, personally, have not
appointed Erik S. Raymond as a license expert[5], have you ?

~velco

[1] Yes, discourage. I, working for MegaCorp, have a lot of my own
   things to do, so I'd not hurry up to submit my modifications if I
   weren't required by the law.


[2] That is not to say that independent developers are not required,
    it's just that their motivation will make them contribute anyway.

[3] Together with other "tools" like closed file formats, anti
    reverse-engineering legislation (USA DMCA), patent laws (USA,
    Japan).

[4] And non-free, as far as I can understand these things, see clause
    2.1(d).

[5] Or any other expert for that matter.