On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 06:10:31 -0400 Jose O Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> > > On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:58:22 +0900 Carsten writes: > > On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:07:33 +1000 Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > babbled: > > > > > It's Friday, and I'm not doing any more coding, so I'll weigh in > > on this > > > one :) > > > > > > I was somewhat surprised when I realised that all Enlightenment > > stuff is > > > BSD. > > > > > > The GPL license offers protection from predatory bodies - mainly > > > corporations - from taking your code and building on it without > > giving > > > those changes back. This seems like a good protection to me. The > > > consensus here seems to be that the BSD license gives them the > > most > > > freedom. That may be so, but it also offers no protection. Say for > > > > > example Microsoft or Apple or some other company come along and > > lift > > > your code, incorporating it in their next product, but adding a > > couple > > > of thousand hours of work to it. They of course don't give > > anything back > > > to the original authors. Wouldn't that worry people? Perhaps it > > would > > > never happen, but then again perhaps it would. > > > > > > The 'freedom' arguement also ignores the fact that people can > > > dual-license their code. Why not negotiate a dual-license deal > > with > > > developers so that the code that is released to the public is GPL, > > but > > > the developers get offered a BSD-licensed copy? > > > > > > Not being an Enlightenment developer at the moment ( Perl's the > > limit > > > ... whatever happened to those Perl bindings, by the way ), I'm > > not > > > particularly bothered either way. I suppose I'm more curious. Of > > course > > > I respect the developers' choice to put whatever license they want > > on > > > their code, but I'd like to hear more from people who have the > > time to > > > respond why they see the BSD is better for them than the GPL - > > > especially when there are options like dual-licensing. > > > > OK. I guess this topic has done the rounds years ago and time is for > > a new one. > > i emphasise that this is a PERSONAL OPINION base on experience, > > knowledge of > > industry, technical facts, and all the licenses in question as well > > as others > > out there. > > > > fact: once source is available it IS able to be stolen. the chances > > of being > > able to lift large chunks of useful code (eg take the image scaling > > routines or > > the alpha blending routines) which is where a lot of the really > > tight code is, > > is tirival. no one would ever know. reformat it a bit and that's it. > > there is > > very little you can do. you will never know its stolen. its part of > > a much > > larger codebase that suddenly is faster and nicer. we have not the > > resources to > > litigate nor the time to scour the world looking for code and > > products that may > > have possible used the code, disasembling their machnie code and > > hunting for > > patterns that might possibly indicate our code (and a bit of > > reformatting - if > > u loop one way or another) can even make this entirely pointless. > > theft is > > trivial. not getting caught is easy as pie. accept it. even if they > > dont steal > > the code - they can READ it and find the IDEAs and HOW to do it then > > re-implement (alomsot identically). this doesnt violate even the > > gpl. > > > > now in an attempt to have an olive branch stretched out to the world > > that > > doesnt eat, sleep, breathe open source, we are making the barrier of > > entry > > lower but not REQUIRING they ship source. they have other options. > > shipping > > source is one way of meeting attribution clauses. others are to > > advertise or to > > simply tell the develoeprs about the use of it. as a matter of FACT > > that if > > they take code and dont give back - they bear the burdern of > > maintenance and > > handling a fork. they will find it hard to incorproate new > > improvements and > > eventually due to practical concernns will be driven back to the > > main tree and > > realise it is better for them to give back what they do - if > > anything, and save > > costs. > > > > also note - a lot of things are LIBRARIES - they mostly will not > > GIVE BACK as > > they build ontop of an api. their IP is in their app, not the lib. > > if they find > > a bug - it helps them to submit a patch as that patch is then in > > upstream and > > they dont have to maintain a fork. they can concentrate on their own > > product > > and not worry about a slew of libraries etc. they are using the api > > of. they > > have much fewer license concerns. > > > > for the "open soruce world" the lbiraries are as open - if not more > > so, than > > most, so nothing lost there. > > > > and finally - i went with this license because frankly - i accepted > > long long > > long ago that peolpe will take and NOT GIVE BACK. they do it with > > gpl - and > > they do it in terms of download then ask for support - and support > > takes time. > > time costs money. thus effectively they are taking and NOT giving > > back. they > > will never write a single patch or a line of code. they will use it > > and ask for > > support/help - EVEN IF the help is IN documentation - they dont read > > it. they > > prefer to write an email to a developer and get a personalised > > response. dont > > worry about licenes - this is the WORST problem with open source. by > > FAR. > > companies are unlikely to just "steal". thats the view of those that > > hate > > anything commercial. practicality is that the companies need some > > support - > > will ask a bit, realise they use up your time and offer to PAY you > > for it and > > PAY for patches, custom code ans support BECAUSE the license is > > muchmore open. > > this helps you get some minimal money for your hard work - better > > than $0. note > > - we dont get paid ANYTHING to produce E related code. it's produced > > out of > > sheer love, sweat and tears. for all the students out there - this > > stuff is > > done in time on evenings and weekends after exhausting days of work. > > year in > > and year out. for peolpe with jobs personal time is precous and > > worth a lot to > > them personally - so in working on e we invest much of ourselves in > > it. we are > > a project with $0 funding. unlike many other projects of similar > > visibility, no > > company has stepped forward to seriously partner with us to fund its > > development (thus it moves very slowly). over the years there have > > been times > > when me, or mandrake or mej have had paid work time to work on > > things. but > > those have been minimal in the scheme/lifetime of E. > > > > a BSD +attribution license is a way of extending an olive branch to > > companies > > possibly willing to put down some hard cash. we all have principles > > and stick > > to them like glue. i have had a few job offers before for large > > sums, BUT they > > would have meant an IP agreement that would mean i no longer could > > work on E as > > all my coding work would belong to the company. such offers i have > > turned down, > > even after negotiations and big carrots. if you cant, trust us that > > we have the > > interests of the project at heart and will maintain that, but in > > doing so we > > like to "bend with the wind" a bit more than most to achieve the > > goal. > > > > so... after a bit of length there - thats the reason i have used bsd > > licenses, > > and almost all of the core develoeprs agree with such licenses as > > being the way > > to go - we may simply think alike on the topic, but that is one > > thing that > > definitely binds us all together. > > > > All of this appears reasonable, and yet there are arguments that > are also reasonable to the effect that license XYZ is instead a 'better' > way to go. > Rather than agonize over attempting to dissect the fine points of > license A over license B, one can offer the option of both (if possible) > as has been suggested by the poster. we won't - we are suggesting being consistent with the same licensing as everything else - not to argue. i just gave the reasoning behind it. it's been thsi way for many years and it's been hashed over years ago. :) > In particular, if BSD and LGPL are the A and B here, then why not > have all "e" code covered under a choice of either - ie. a company or > a distribution can use BSD or LGPL as they wish. Where is there a loss to > e, or its developers, in this added extra flexibility?? too late. its already licensed. to re-license you need all copyright holders (everyone who is listedin AUTHORS) to agree to aq license change. dual licensing is the same. :) > Furthermore, in an attempt to better understand the possible benefits > of A over B, or A and/or B, offerings.. one might want to look around and > see which projects that use any such, and how they've fared. > If one does this, one would tend to incline to the conclusion that > those projects that use LGPL are more numerous, and have been somewhat > more > successful in being "adopted" than those that use BSD. > > For LGPL/GPL one has: the Linux kernel, all the basic GNU > libs/programs, GNOME/Gtk, KDE/Qt, and a host of others... > > For BSD one has: the various BSD kernels, the X.org implementation > of X11, enlightenment, and some others...? > > > On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 04:15:57 -0400 Michael writes: > > On Friday, 14 October 2005, at 01:17:02 (-0400), > > Jose O Gonzalez wrote: > > > > > I personally do not care much for any licensing schemes, and every > > > piece of code I've ever put up here, meager as it's been, I've done > > > so with no conditions whatever ...... > > > > Anything you write is copyrighted. Whether or not you implicitly > > assign copyright to the original author(s) when you submit a patch > > or > > block of code is a matter of much debate. > > > > Not so. This very much depends on particular countries and their > laws. In the USA, while one is indeed the 'author' of whatever one > writes, > one needs to expressely claim copyright ownership, or one may not have > the legal right to such after it is posted somewhere. > > > > > But villifying one license scheme as 'political' and blessing > > > another as the one true 'apolitical' choice, is quite flawed. > > > > The GPL is designed around the political views of GNU and RMS. The > > BSD license basically says, "We don't care what you do with this as > > long as you give us credit." The only thing that's more free than > > that is "public domain." So as licenses go, BSD is pretty much as > > apolitical as you can get. > > > Ummm... As I've stated, I have little care, personally, for any > licensing scheme.. But looking over this whole thread, I'd put this > forward: > > If 'apolitical-ness' is what e is after, then public > domain would be best. > > If thwarting the political views of RMS, then anything *but* > LGPL/GPL would be best. > > If instead e seeks support/acceptance/funding etc. from companies > or whatnot, then if we look at the results mentioned above... it would > seem that furthering the political views of GNU and RMS has served > a very large number of projects *very* well. > > Perhaps e needs to rexamine, in a realistic "non-religious" manner, > what its priorities are.. and make a serious study of what has worked > best for projects, and what has not. > > Jose. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: > Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, > and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl > _______________________________________________ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 裸好多 Tokyo, Japan (東京 日本) ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
