License wars

License wars

[Hugues Talbot]

Dear Alexander,

The LGPL's intention is to let people use Free software into
proprietary code as long as they go through some slightly annoying
hoops, while ensuring that the Free software itself remains Free. I
think this is what we want (in broad terms).

Now I've scanned through the CPL and it does not seem to protect the
Free software in any way that is clearly spelled.  The LGPL says that
if you modify the original Free software then your modification must
also be Free. The CPL does not spell what a derivative work is. Is 
it anyone's guess ? do you have to be a copyright laywer to have some
opinion on this?

You may not agree with the LGPL definition of a derivative work but at
least it's there.

I don't want to go into any kind of religious war on licenses, but the
(L)GPL has been enforced several times by the FSF, so far no one has
dared or found it worthwhile to go to court, maybe it is `idiotic' in
your own words but it seems to be somewhat effective.

The FSF has stated several times that they would help anyone wishing
to enforce the (L)GPL on their own software. Can we expect the same
service from IBM, should someone infringe on the CPL?

The point of a Free Software license is to grand some rights and have
some protection. The CPL does the first part all right, I'm not
sure about the second, sorry.


--------
Hugues Talbot, CSIRO Mathematical & Information Sciences
Locked Bag 17, Building E6B, Macquarie University  North Ryde  
NSW  2113  Australia           Ph: 61 2 9325 3208 Fax: 61 2 9325 3200

Verbing weirds language -- Calvin

Re: License wars

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hugues Talbot wrote:
[...]
> The CPL does not spell what a derivative work is.

Because that's defined in the copyright statute and, to some 
extent, in the case law.

> Is it anyone's guess ? do you have to be a copyright laywer 
> to have some opinion on this?

It surely won't hurt. ;-)

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html
http://www.pbwt.com/Attorney/files/ravicher_1.pdf
http://www.rosenlaw.com/html/GL18.pdf

> You may not agree with the LGPL definition of a derivative 
> work but at least it's there.

Really?

<quote source=http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.txt>

A "work based on the Library" means either the Library or any 
derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work 
containing the Library or a portion of it, either verbatim or 
with modifications and/or translated straightforwardly into 
another language.

</quote>

Translation: "we're going to impose restrictions on BOTH 
derivative AND COLLECTIVE works (if you distribute them) and 
now see the copyright statute and check also the case law if 
you don't understand the legal meaning of 'derivative works' 
and 'collective works' in software".

What do you NOT understand here? My problem is NOT related
to the "share-alike" provisions for derivative works. The
CPL does have it too. My problem with [L]GPL is that [L]GPL 
imposes restrictions on the "entire" COLLECTIVE works... 
including non-derivative "constituents". Do you get it now?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. I'm NOT speaking for IBM here. "My own opinions; and in 
no way reflect official opinion or policy of IBM Corp". Okay?


Sent by:        pthreads-win32-owner@sources.redhat.com
To:     pthreads-win32@sources.redhat.com
cc:      
Subject:        License wars



Dear Alexander,

The LGPL's intention is to let people use Free software into
proprietary code as long as they go through some slightly annoying
hoops, while ensuring that the Free software itself remains Free. I
think this is what we want (in broad terms).

Now I've scanned through the CPL and it does not seem to protect the
Free software in any way that is clearly spelled.  The LGPL says that
if you modify the original Free software then your modification must
also be Free. The CPL does not spell what a derivative work is. Is 
it anyone's guess ? do you have to be a copyright laywer to have some
opinion on this?

You may not agree with the LGPL definition of a derivative work but at
least it's there.

I don't want to go into any kind of religious war on licenses, but the
(L)GPL has been enforced several times by the FSF, so far no one has
dared or found it worthwhile to go to court, maybe it is `idiotic' in
your own words but it seems to be somewhat effective.

The FSF has stated several times that they would help anyone wishing
to enforce the (L)GPL on their own software. Can we expect the same
service from IBM, should someone infringe on the CPL?

The point of a Free Software license is to grand some rights and have
some protection. The CPL does the first part all right, I'm not
sure about the second, sorry.


--------
Hugues Talbot, CSIRO Mathematical & Information Sciences
Locked Bag 17, Building E6B, Macquarie University  North Ryde 
NSW  2113  Australia           Ph: 61 2 9325 3208 Fax: 61 2 9325 3200

Verbing weirds language -- Calvin

Re: License wars

[Phil Frisbie, Jr.]

Hugues Talbot wrote:
> Dear Alexander,

I need to add my $.02 worth of opinion here.

> The LGPL's intention is to let people use Free software into
> proprietary code as long as they go through some slightly annoying
> hoops, while ensuring that the Free software itself remains Free. I
> think this is what we want (in broad terms).

This is EXACTLY why I chose the LGPL for my free open source code libraries. For
example, my own HawkVoice library, which provides speech compression to games
and other applications, is being used in TeamSound, which is used in Sony
Entertainment's PlanetSide. The credits are here:
http://planetside.station.sony.com/howto/manual_detail.jsp?id=55531 , just
scroll down to the TeamSound logo and read the LGPL required note.

> Now I've scanned through the CPL and it does not seem to protect the
> Free software in any way that is clearly spelled.  The LGPL says that
> if you modify the original Free software then your modification must
> also be Free. The CPL does not spell what a derivative work is. Is 
> it anyone's guess ? do you have to be a copyright laywer to have some
> opinion on this?
> 
> You may not agree with the LGPL definition of a derivative work but at
> least it's there.

I have used several free libraries in the past and have always been grateful
enough to pass on enhancements back into the libraries.

Of course, as the copyright holder of my libraries I reserve the right to
license my libraries other ways, even closed source if I choose, but that is
another topic altogether.

-- 
Phil Frisbie, Jr.
Hawk Software
http://www.hawksoft.com

Re: License wars

[Hugues Talbot]

Dear Alexander,

There is no point in getting angry like that. What you call
`collective work' is not what the FSF defines as collective, 
the LGPL lumps a great deal under the term `derivative work'. 
That term has not been tested in court with respect to the LGPL 
so there is no certainty about who is right, you or the FSF 
laywers. Straight logic does not apply necessarily in court 
decisions. A lot of people may not like it but that's the way 
it is. Whether or not the FSF has a leg to stand on is open 
to debate but this is not the point.

Yes I agree with you that the LGPL restricts more than the CPL
or the BSD or the Mozilla license, that much is obvious. My 
point is that the LGPL is a strong license which may not be
as business-friendly as other licenses, but it does have some
bite. My impression is that the CPL is unenforceable whereas
the LGPL has been enforced successfully several times already.
Most recently there was a article in Forbes magazine about it.

It's a bit like patents. There is zero point in taking a patent
if you are not willing to go to court to defend it. Same here.
If you are quite prepared for anybody to do anything they want
with your code then the choice of license does not matter.
If you want to defend your code against exploitation then 
as an individual or a collection of individuals with little means
there is little choice, and the CPL is probably not one of them,
although I would welcome news to the contrary.

Note that the BSD license is very business-friendly and has been
actually court-tested successfully, something the (L)GPL cannot
claim. However as you know the BSD license protects little.

Finally if the copyright holders of the pthread-win32 library 
decide the LGPL is unacceptable they can change it, but this is 
not for me or you to have the last word.

If you are trying to have a constructive debate about this 
treating people like idiots is not the way to go.



--------
Hugues Talbot, CSIRO Mathematical & Information Sciences
Locked Bag 17, Building E6B, Macquarie University  North Ryde  
NSW  2113  Australia           Ph: 61 2 9325 3208 Fax: 61 2 9325 3200

63% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Re: License wars

[Alexander Terekhov]

> There is no point in getting angry like that.

I do get angry because each and every "pro FSF" supporter that
I've met so far on the net, made no exception with respect to 
showing it rather clearly that s/he had made zilch of research 
(other than absorbing a lot of FSF propaganda and myths). Talk 
to your lawyer and...

> Most recently there was a article in Forbes magazine about it.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=F5lN.5v.19%40gated-at.bofh.it

read this entire thread.

regards,
alexander.