On 23.10.2011 00:28, Sean Kelly wrote:
> It's annoying as it means a pass through the documentation team for distributed software, but whatever.  At least it's usable. Personally, my favorite is the Boost license, and I'm just about to the point where I don't even care about source code attribution for my own work.

Yes. I don't see why it's necessary at all. To take somebody's code and pretend that you wrote it, is plagiarism. You don't need a license to tell you that.

> On Oct 22, 2011, at 2:51 PM, "Adam D. Ruppe"<destructionator@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Even the two clause BSD annoys me because of this:
>>
>> "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
>>
>> It strikes me as empty vanity.

>Personally, > my favorite is the Boost license, and I'm just about to the point where > I don't even care about source code attribution for my  own work.
> 
Sean,

Agree with you 100%. Just put your name on the original. If they need it spelled out then maybe they'll be inclined to contribute. If not then you've just done a better job than average. But then, I'm retired, and have enough income to get by.

Steve

On 10/23/2011 4:11 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
> It never ceases to amaze me that "being business friendly" has become a
> phrase for "allows business to steal FOSS work for profit" and conned
> the FOSS community into thinking this is a good thing!


The Boost license for Phobos allows such use, and in no way are we Phobos contributors being conned. We're well aware of it and in fact that's one big reason why we chose Boost over GPL.

People are free to take the Phobos source and do whatever they please with it, with our blessing. Hey, if Vanilla Ice "samples" it for his next rap album, we won't sue. We promise!

Of course, we'd like it if they submitted back fixes and improvements, but that's up to them. (Vanilla Ice, you can keep your rap version. Thanks but no thanks!)

On 10/23/2011 1:52 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
> Certainly:  That the world of dynamic linking is slightly different from
> that of static linking.

I think that line is arbitrary and doesn't really exist. For example, what does that mean when template code gets stuffed in the .h files?

On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 10:36 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 10/23/2011 1:52 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
> > Certainly:  That the world of dynamic linking is slightly different from that of static linking.
> 
> I think that line is arbitrary and doesn't really exist. For example, what does that mean when template code gets stuffed in the .h files?

The line may be arbitrary but it does exists, witness the fact that you responded to it and is can still be found on the servers :-)

I was focusing the notion of dynamic binding as in Python, Java, etc. which is generally where all the perceived problems are regarding LGPL.

Hasn't the issue of source code distribution (of templates) in C++ (and
D?) been hashed out, it's what resulted in the Boost licence in the
first place?

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:11 AM, Russel Winder <russel@russel.org.uk> wrote:
> It funny how when it comes to licences, viral is used as a derogatory term, but when used in marketing, viral is a positive goal that everyone wants to achieve.

That is because you live in a capitalist economy. I don't find it funny at all. I am always shock to hear what people are willing to do and say for the pursuit of a profit. It is even more shocking when technologist and scientist start judging technologies and innovation based on profitability. One can one do? That is the world we live in.

-Jose

On Sunday, October 23, 2011 11:06:26 Jose Armando Garcia wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:11 AM, Russel Winder <russel@russel.org.uk> wrote:
> > It funny how when it comes to licences, viral is used as a derogatory term, but when used in marketing, viral is a positive goal that everyone wants to achieve.
> 
> That is because you live in a capitalist economy. I don't find it funny at all. I am always shock to hear what people are willing to do and say for the pursuit of a profit. It is even more shocking when technologist and scientist start judging technologies and innovation based on profitability. One can one do? That is the world we live in.

LOL. I don't think that it has anything to do with a capitalist anything. It's going purely by the definition of viral. In the case of the GPL, because it's viral, it affects everything that it comes into contact wtih. It "infects" any code that you use it with. Many view the fact that the GPL does this as negative. In the case of the market campaign, the message is passed onto everyone that it comes into contact with, so the message becomes very widespread. This is obviously something that advertisers view as positive. In both cases, the term viral refers to how it spreads, not whether it's negative or positive. It's just that in the one case, having it spread like that is viewed as negative by some, and in the other it's viewed as positive. The word is used in essentially the same way in both cases meaning the same thing, and it in itself does not make that particular case either good or bad.

- Jonthan M Davis

On Sunday, October 23, 2011 14:26:34 Don wrote:
> On 23.10.2011 00:28, Sean Kelly wrote:
> > It's annoying as it means a pass through the documentation team for distributed software, but whatever.  At least it's usable. Personally, my favorite is the Boost license, and I'm just about to the point where I don't even care about source code attribution for my own work.
>
> Yes. I don't see why it's necessary at all. To take somebody's code and pretend that you wrote it, is plagiarism. You don't need a license to tell you that.

But you probably do need a license in order to protect it in court. If people were going to just pay attention to right and wrong with this sort of thing, a lot of licenses would never have been needed in the first place (some like the GPL might still need to exist to insist that you give back rather than simply not claiming that you wrote it, but many of the OSS licensing center around making sure that you don't claim that you wrote something that you didn't). Still, it's pretty sad when you think about it.

One nice use for the names attributions though - completely beyond the legal ramifications - is that it makes it easier to know who wrote something so that you can contact them if you need to (though since it doesn't include contact information beyond the name, that only gets you so far).

- Jonathan M Davis

On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:
> I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
> 	
> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>
> Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.

No, it doesn't. It's pure flamebait. Nobody wants to get herpes and it serves no useful purpose. On the other hand, many people happily use GPL software and like the fact that the source is available and will remain available with further distributions.

If you don't like GPL then don't use it. It's not hidden and going to infect you without your consent.

On 10/23/2011 10:48 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
> Hasn't the issue of source code distribution (of templates) in C++ (and
> D?) been hashed out, it's what resulted in the Boost licence in the
> first place?


Boost doesn't solve GPL issues if the code is GPL licensed :-)

But we like Boost and use it for Phobos.