Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [hackers-il] "Licences Wars"

Expand Messages
  • Shlomi Fish
    ... This seems a bit contradictory. And who would be happy with such a licence and not with, say, the X11L? ... I see. ... Well, I have yet to hear of an
    Message 1 of 12 , Mar 3, 2009
      On Saturday 10 January 2009 21:27:50 Amit Aronovitch wrote:
      > On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
      > > On Friday 07 November 2008, Amit Aronovitch wrote:
      > > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:33 AM, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
      > > > > Now. The first thing I'll mention is that it is not entirely agreed
      > >
      > > upon
      > >
      > > > > which
      > > > > licences are free/open-source and which are not:
      > > > >
      > > > > The original Artistic Licence (authored by Larry Wall for
      > >
      > > dual-licensing
      > >
      > > > > perl)
      > > > > is:
      > > > >
      > > > > * considered non-free (and non-GPL-compatible) by the FSF
      > > > >
      > > > > * considered free by Debian.
      > > > >
      > > > > * considered non-free by RedHat.
      > > > >
      > > > > * considered free by Mandriva.
      > > > >
      > > > > * considered open-source by the OSI -
      > > > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0.php
      > > > >
      > > > > * was considered a contract in a certain judgement:
      > > > >
      > > > > http://lwn.net/Articles/246695/
      > > > >
      > > > > (Who are you going to believe?)
      > > >
      > > > Possibly all. The reason is that "freeness" is not a boolean parameter.
      > >
      > > Not
      > >
      > > > even a single parameter real-valued scale. There are multiple criteria,
      > > > possibly contradicting each other. Much like human rights...
      > > > It is much more practical to talk about specific definitions, such as
      > > > OSI-free/DFSG-free/FSF-free etc.
      > > > As your examples clearly demonstrate, these do not comply to a total
      > > > ordering (in the mathematical sense:
      > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order ).
      > > >
      > > > You should decide how you *want* your work to be distributed and choose
      > >
      > > the
      > >
      > > > license accordingly (effectively decide which criteria should take
      > > > priority). CC has a nice mechanism for it.
      > >
      > > Well, generally speaking one should strive for endorsement as free (and
      > > preferably GPL-compatibility) by everybody. Otherwise, you may be facing
      > > problems.
      >
      > In this case, your recommendations are also not free enough. Only license
      > that would work is something like:
      > "You can do with this work whatever you like, even claim that you did it
      > all by yourself, no need to mention me. However, you still have the right
      > to sue me if it does not work".

      This seems a bit contradictory. And who would be happy with such a licence and
      not with, say, the X11L?

      > The reason you don't find any license like that is because authors normally
      > want to assure at least some of their own rights, and that comes at the
      > expense of the "freedoms" of the end users. The question is how you
      > prioritize these freedoms.

      I see.

      >
      > You actually want "endorsement as free" not really by *everybody*, just by
      > a specific list of organizations which you consider relevant for your
      > beliefs and for the projects you work on.
      >

      Well, I have yet to hear of an organisation that doesn't consider the X11L as
      a usable licence. But who knows?

      > As for CC, the standard CC licences
      >
      > > (CC-by/CC-by-sa/CC-by-nc-sa/CC-by-nd/etc.) are not suitable for software
      > > due
      > > to their attribution clause:
      > >
      > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
      > >
      > > In fact, the Creative Commons does not let you choose "software" as the
      > > type
      > > of artwork, when filling their form.
      >
      > I'm not sure what you mean, but it seems that the discussion in your link
      > is irrelevant. It speaks about the specific case of attribution in
      > "advertising materials" (you can't make effective ads if they must include
      > 100
      > attributions).

      I see.

      > The CC attribution clause says only that you must attribute "in the manner
      > specified by the author" - this in itself places no restriction, all
      > depends on what the author explicitly requires.

      Hmmm... interesting. In any case, the FSF does not consider CC-by and CC-by-sa
      as GPL-compatible. And I'm not sure the CC attribution clause (while taking
      into consideration its difference from the original BSDL advertising clause)
      is GPL-compatible. And the Creative Commons still recommends using one of the
      more standard (and older) software licences for licensing programs rather than
      one of the CC licences.

      Regards,

      Shlomi Fish

      --
      -----------------------------------------------------------------
      Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
      "Humanity" - Parody of Modern Life - http://xrl.us/bkeut

      <mauke> I'm not interested in what you're doing; what are you trying to
      achieve?
      <PerlJam> mauke: I'm trying to achieve world peace and this regex is
      the last thing standing in my way! ;)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.