On 04/12/2011 09:05 AM, Andrew Wiley wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Russel Winder<rus...@russel.org.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 19:47 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[ . . . ]
Regardless, I think we've clearly demonstrated the complete impenetrability
of (L)GPL. I've long since given up trying to understand it, and I seriously
doubt that anyone really truly understands it (it's the C++ of the legal
world). Even if you do miraculously understand one form of it, there still
probably about 10 other versions and half of them are even incompatible with
each other (in poorly-understood ways). The whole thing's just a damn mess.
I've always found it best to just avoid any (L)GPL source or library
outright. Not worth the trouble.
GPL and LGPL are fine licences. They only appear impenetrable because
there is no case law in the USA or UK to define the accepted meaning as
opposed to the intended meaning. It may be that in countries that do
not rely on case law to give meaning to statutes, contracts and licence,
things are different.
Personally I find licences such as BSD, MIT, ASL, etc. ones to avoid
since they allow organizations to take software, sell it for profit and
return absolutely nothing to the development community. I think LGPL is
the preferred licence for all non-proprietary software and am very glad
to find libraries that use it.
Sadly the Java world seems to have slipped from using LGPL to being
obsessed with using ASL 2.0 and professing hatred of LGPL. ASL 2.0
claims to have a patent clause unlike all the other non (L)GPL licences,
but until this is tested in court so that there is case law no-one, not
even lawyers, actually know what the licences mean or entail.
The Java world likes ASL precisely because software licensed under it
can be sold. Take a look at the signature lines of the main
contributors to large open source Java projects. It's common for large
companies to pay programmers to develop open source software that's
eventually shipped in products, and at the end of the day, the
community benefits.
This is complete misinterpretation. *All* free software can be sold.
Now yes, it's entirely an honor system, and there's certainly a risk
involved, but in general, the ASL has made Java's open source
community grow quite a bit.
This is an empty assertion. Can you point to any study logically demonstrating
any relation between Java's preferred license and "Java's open source community
grow[ing] quite a bit"? Or even to a theoretical reason for this?
Denis
--
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
