On 23.10.2011 20:27, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> 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.

Maybe, but if it goes to court, you also need money!
OTOH, though, with so much code in publically accessible repositories, I think it should be pretty easy to identify blatant stealing.

My feeling is, that often licenses are put on code just because the author wants acknowledgement. Nothing more. It's pretty common to read:
"Do whatever you like with this, just keep my name on it".
Which *should* be covered by plagiarism anyway. Thus, the only reason for most licenses should be for the benefit of the user, not the author.

But most of the licenses include all kinds of silly extra restrictions, possibly relevant for corporations but not for people who've just written some stuff in their spare time.

> 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.

The GPL makes a lot of sense to me. It has a particular agenda, and it's trying to force users in a particular direction.
But the hundreds of variations of BSD licenses seem completely unnecessary to me.

> 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).

>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, not at all.
First, it isn't new: it's just the "GPL is viral" classic FUD, then
it's still incorrect: when you're ill from a viral infection, you
didn't choose it but a developer can choose whether he wants to use
GPL code or not.

Incorrect analogies are really, really nasty stuff, please don't
propagate this FUD.
renoX

"renoX" <renzyx@free.fr> wrote in message news:j8383e$1ul8$1@digitalmars.com...
> >I'dneverseenitbefore-maybeIleadashelteredlife.
>>
>>GPL:"FreeasinHerpes"
>>
>>Doesn'tthatjusthitthenailonthehead.

What happened to the spaces?

>
> No, not at all.
> First, it isn't new: it's just the "GPL is viral" classic FUD, then
> it's still incorrect: when you're ill from a viral infection, you
> didn't choose it but a developer can choose whether he wants to use
> GPL code or not.
>
> Incorrect analogies are really, really nasty stuff, please don't
> propagate this FUD.
> renoX
>

Meh, use of the term "FUD" itself has become a FUD tactic. And it's just an analogy (plus joke). Analogies are rarely perfect and they aren't meant to hold up to being picked apart by all the little details. It's close enough as an analogy.

Sean Kelly Wrote:

> I don't like either one, because having the letters "GPL" in a license name is an automatic hands-off from legal in every company I've ever worked.

That's perfect. Corporations MUST pay.

Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

> Even ignoring the viral nature, the "hundred page wall of legalese" alone is enough to make me very, very nervous about going anywhere near it (same goes for creative commons). Not to mention the thousand different versions of [L]GPL.

GPL is very simple: stay open source, release your code under GPL and you don't even have to read that wall.

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:33:52 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> 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!

And what does GPL do, allow you to "steal FOSS work for non-profit"?  I mean come on!  It's not stealing if I give it away, regardless of your opinion of the recipient!  Unlike users of GPL or proprietary licenses, we do not discriminate against people we want to help :)

> 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!)

Wow, how 1990s of you to bring that up :)

-Steve

Chante Wrote:

> While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the knowledge to do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in mind as a potential cure for the current state of affairs (not a cure for viral source code though). Of course, noting that first-to-file is now the thing, it appears (to me) that Big Software Corp and Big Government are on one side, humanity on the other.

Patents are seen to exist for humanity. Elimination of patents is equivalent to elimination of intellectual property. You're not going to succeed on that. But GPL3 at least protects you from patent claims from the author, so you'd better use it. You're afraid of others, but GPL can also protect *your* code.

> You're afraid of others, but GPL can also protect *your* code.

Most notably GPL protects the rights of your users. Are you thinking about your users?

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:39:54 -0400, Kagamin <spam@here.lot> wrote:

> Chante Wrote:
>
>> While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the knowledge to
>> do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in mind as a
>> potential cure for the current state of affairs (not a cure for viral
>> source code though). Of course, noting that first-to-file is now the
>> thing, it appears (to me) that Big Software Corp and Big Government are
>> on one side, humanity on the other.
>
> Patents are seen to exist for humanity. Elimination of patents is equivalent to elimination of intellectual property. You're not going to succeed on that. But GPL3 at least protects you from patent claims from the author, so you'd better use it. You're afraid of others, but GPL can also protect *your* code.

Patents are to foster innovation.  Software innovation needs no patent system to foster it.  Nobody writes a piece of software because they were able to get a patent for it.

I feel software patents are a completely different entity than material patents.  For several reasons:

1. Software is already well-covered by copyright.
2. With few exceptions, the lifetime of utility of a piece of software is well below the lifetime of a patent (currently 17 years).
3. It is a very slippery slope to go down.  Software is a purely *abstract* thing, it's not a machine.  It can be produced en mass with near-zero cost.  It can be expressed via source code, which is *not* a piece of software.  There is a very good reason things like music, art, and written works are not patentable.  Free speech is at odds with software patents.
4. Unlike a physical entity, it is very likely a simple individual, working on his own time with his own ideas, can create software that inadvertently violates a "patent" with low cost.  To restrain free-thought like this goes against the spirit of the patent system.  The patent system when it was designed, protected the little guys who have good ideas from the giants who were the only ones capable of stealing them.  Software patents are the other way around, and serve as a barrier to entry more than a system to foster new ideas.  By the time you are able to "build on" an expired patent's ideas, the technology is long obsolete.
5. The patent office does *NOT UNDERSTAND* software, so they are more apt to grant trivial patents (e.g. one-click).

My take:  Either software patents should be *elminiated* entirely, or reduced to a reasonable software lifetime (e.g. 2 years).

-Steve

On 10/24/2011 05:30 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
> Meh, use of the term "FUD" itself has become a FUD tactic. And it's just an
> analogy (plus joke). Analogies are rarely perfect and they aren't meant to
> hold up to being picked apart by all the little details. It's close enough
> as an analogy.

It's deceitful propaganda and mudslinging. If it was directed at D you'd be up in arms.