From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25412 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2003 10:06:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact pthreads-win32-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: pthreads-win32-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 25404 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2003 10:06:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO d12lmsgate.de.ibm.com) (194.196.100.235) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Oct 2003 10:06:26 -0000 Received: from d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.196]) by d12lmsgate.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9KA6HoS171640 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:06:23 +0200 Received: from d12ml007.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.9/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id h9KA4oTm149504 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:06:08 +0200 In-Reply-To: <3F9347E8.1080105@callisto.canberra.edu.au> Importance: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Sensitivity: To: pthreads-win32@sources.redhat.com Subject: changing pthreads-win32 license Message-ID: From: "Alexander Terekhov" Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:06:00 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2003/txt/msg00110.txt.bz2 Ross Johnson wrote: [...] > But, before guessing, I have to ask you what your issue is > exactly with the LGPL. My issue with [L]GPL is that FSF "advocates" totally idiotic ("SCOish" so to speak) notion of "derivative work", to begin with. This is just one example: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OOPLang "Subclassing is creating a derivative work. Therefore, the terms of the GPL affect the whole program where you create a subclass of a GPL'ed class. " Of course, this doesn't make sense and is totally wrong. The real problem with [L]GPL is that both try to go "way too far" with the reciprocity provision (quote taken from LGPL, emphasis added): "the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or COLLECTIVE works based on the Library". This is what people call "viral effect". Even folks like creativecommons.org DON'T TRY TO DO THAT. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/legalcode The problems with [L]GPL are nicely illustrated here: http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg05842.html http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg05865.html http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg05867.html http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg05882.html http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg05888.html and also here: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/ch16s07.html Now, as for *L*GPL silliness, just read this: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/license.html > And especially which license you'd prefer to use. The CPL, of course. http://ntxshape.sourceforge.net/opensource.html I like this: "The Lesser GPL used to be called the Library GPL. For historical reasons this license still refers to the software application as "the Library" which can be confusing for licensees. Also, a licensee is allowed to convert the Lesser GPL to a full GPL, after which their enhancements could not be incorporated back into our version of the software. So, for us, LGPL is out. " Please read this: http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/os-cplfaq.html > There have been a few expressions of interest in changing to > another license, such as the BSD license. Fine with me. Just take the CPL and remove the reciprocity provision. http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg06420.html "Reciprocal and non-reciprocal open source licenses ought to be the same -- except with respect to provisions dealing with reciprocity." Well, I'd have no real problems with the AFL/OSL either, but to me, the CPL is better. I like the language/style, to begin with. ;-) > In order to change, I think a concensus of [at least] the major > project contributors would be required. I think that all contributors will have to agree to license their contributions under the new terms in order to change the license. > It's certainly not up to me. I understand. That's why I'm replying to the list. regards, alexander.