Re: licensing

Apologies if this issue is being overworked.  It is significant to some
people but to others it seems overworked.  I've said my bit on this,
whether others agree or not.  This is the last little bit on this debate
for me (I sincerely hope).

On Sun, 2003-10-19 at 17:40, Taran Rampersad wrote:
> Simon deWeerdt wrote:
> 
> >On Sun, 2003-10-19 at 16:10, Taran Rampersad wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>I fail to understand how offering the same code under 2 licenses is 
> >>beneficial. In fact, it's confusing. I could use the GPL'd code to 
> >>create a proprietary application that way, citing that I was using the 
> >>BSD license.
> >>
> >>If you're going to GPL the code, GPL the code. If you're going to use 
> >>the BSD license, use the BSD license. Please don't do both, it has the 
> >>potential to be a legal quagmire.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >I'm not a lawyer, but Perl, a widely used language in web applications
> >and other things is available this way.  I don't believe that making my
> >code available under BSD would change the licensing of any code I used,
> >in fact I might not be able to make any extensions of GPL code available
> >under BSD.  I would not advocate breaking licenses by making GPL stuff
> >available under BSD.
> >
> Whether advocated or not, it is a problem area.

It should NOT be.  Its very simple that if my code builds on GPL code I
must have a license in accordance with the requirements of the GPL code
I've built on.

> >The way I see it is that advocates of GPL want to avoid having code lost
> >into proprietary applications.
> >
> I think it would be more fair to say that advocates of the GPL don't 
> feel the need to compete with their own code.
> 
> >  I don't see that as a great concern
> >because all proprietary applications end up being supplanted by open
> >source ones sooner or later.
> >
> And by the continued permission of people using the BSD license, 
> proprietary companies will continue to use BSD-licensed code produced  
> under a proprietary license and the cycle will continue evermore. 
> Perhaps it's the people within the 'sweet spot' of this that advocate 
> BSD license usage. People often forget that Free Software/Open Source 
> developers need to eat (and strangely, most of these people seem to be 
> advocates of Open Source), and that software is a competitive market.

I'm not clear what your position is here.  At any rate there is no
reason that GPL and BSD cannot both work together.  We need some GPL
stuff and there are applications where the GPL blocks usage of the code.

> >  Some of the proprietary apps may last a
> >long time but eventually they fall out of favour and are discarded. 
> >Some of that code then finds its way into openly shared resources.
> >
> Why wait? Just so proprietary licensed software can profit?

I don't see what is wrong with proprietary software people making a
profit.  I DO see something wrong with idealists insisting everyone
write software for free.

> >Its good/essential that some code is made GPL now but other things would
> >never be developed if there was no proprietary interest.  Most of us
> >programmers write code for proprietary applications.  Unfortunately GPL
> >cannot be included in those applications.  BSD allows the freedom to use
> >the code in other ways.  I think both licenses are good/essential.
> >
> For a programming library such as QT or wxWindows, I see where a license 
> such as a BSD license could be construed as positive. You use the 
> example of Perl, which fits. For an end user application, I do not see this.

You may be right.  It depends on what you want the software used for. I
think both licenses allows the widest use while preserving copyright.

> >I can make my code available under either license if I wish.  I don't
> >plan to make anyone else's GPL code available under BSD or BSD under
> >GPL.  This may not be the best solution for everyone but I think it
> >makes it widely usable by diverse interests.  The government needs can
> >be met by including a requirement for attribution and having the work
> >done by local developers.  Thats how I see it at any rate.
> >
> But you see, if you make the same code available under different 
> licenses, there is a potential problem especially with regard to end 
> user applications. Proprietary applications do not make their source 
> available; SCO is a blaring example of this. Then there is the issue of 
> Eolas which is
> 
> But to drag this back onto topic: Why should the South African 
> government and it's citizens pay for software that can be used in a 
> competing proprietary application from another country? I fail to see 
> how that would benefit the people of South Africa. In fact, I would go 
> so far as to call it the theft of the South African people's investment. 
> With the GPL, the people of South Africa would derive benefits from 
> everyone else's modifications to the source code as well. A negative 
> effect versus a positive effect.

Why should the people of South Africa have to ensure that their software
cannot be used in proprietary applications?  They will not be required
to buy competing proprietary applications so why would they choose to?

> My decision would be simple. GPL.

Its not our decision, I've said my piece and am no longer interested in
debating it.  You may be right, I just see it differently.

Simon de Weerdt