> > About using a web site for documentation and license notifications-- > that sounds good, and actually in many cases that would be fine. But > here in the USA, it is very common for a company to develop a product > (lets call it a widget), and then re-sell it to many other companies, > which incorporate the widget into their own products, in ways the > original developer never imagined. So, requiring this documentation > to be maintained all along the various product distribution channels > and levels can be a challenge.
Interesting example. I can only say that, yes, it can be a challenge... What do people do when using commercial libraries ? Aren't there any restrictions, "have to" or any other restrictions ? I understand there are restrictions when using OS licensed libraries, such as BSD licensed ones, but, so what ? I mean, I really understand what you mean, what's your concern, but I can only keep thinking it's just the way it has to be: give credit where it's due. Isn't it, after all, the price to pay for using a open source lib, which is free as in beer and as in freedom ? Think about this: jallib could have been GPL licensed :) > About pre-programmed chips-- there have been some serious court > battles concerning license violations. And these were with > production, binary-only, embedded products. One or more of the > original copyright/license holders, "reverse-engineered" the product, > and was able to make a compelling argument to the courts. In turn, > the courts forced the companies shipping the products to provide > documentation, source code, emails, files from old backup media, etc, > etc. Interesting again. Most court battles were about embedded products ? So, does this mean no OS license is able to handle this, or does this mean it's easy to steal code and put it in an embedded product "so why bother about licenses ?". I think there were many license abuses, people literally stealing GPL'd (or the like) code. Now then, it seems to me, we are mainly in agreement, you and I. I > would like to give credit where it is due, especially if I am re-using > source code. But to say that after I develop a "widget", and sell it > to a distributor, that I will always and forever keep track of where > it ends up, and make sure that everyone along the way also gives > credit where it is due-- that is too much for me to agree to. It > isn't that I don't care, it just isn't practical. OK. But you're not responsible for other people's uses of your widget. You've informed them about the restrictions. They'll do what they have to do... or not... About the 2-clause versus 3-clause. I was trying to point out that, > you seem to be contradicting yourself-- you want credit where it is > due, but actually the 3rd clause prohibits this, at least in some > situations. For example, if my product announcement says "My product > is faster, better, smarter because I use JALLIB", that would break the > rules. Why would you want to resrict that? The 2-clause still has a > huge disclaimer that should be sufficient protection. Or, without this clause, you could say: "it's not working because it's jallib-based, just a crap". Without this clause, one could also advertise about using jallib, in a sense, you, the authors, would not agree. It's my understanding this 2-clauses license is for FreeBSD, the OS, itself. Anyway, I understand what you mean, I'm ok using a 2-clauses BSD license. > Now you really didn't yet say specifically what you don't like about > zlib, and indeed, you haven't indicated that you've bothered to look > at it. Errr ? I wouldn't be so picky about it, without having reading it... That's the absolute minimum. And you can't know how many times I've looked at it :) > In fact, it is "GPL compatible", and you can read about it at > the GNU GPL site, and it is also accepted by OSI. The main thing is > that while it encourages you to give credit where it is due, it > doesn't insist on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zlib_License I know all of that. This is the main problem, which I think I have already explained. I don't like zlib, because, as you say, you don't *necessarily* have to give credit where it's due. > In summary, it seems to me that the big concern should be for other > developers, and how they use and distribute the source code. What do you mean, about others developpers, and source code ? > Thank you, Thanks *you* for reading and exposing your point of view ! I think I'm done with this topic. At least I'd like to :) This is an eternal debate, I understand the pros and the cons of using zlib. I don't want to work with the cons. So, if you, jallib guys, can tell me what you'll do with binaries other than programmed chips (ie. hex files, python scripts embedded in a main exe script, any other binaries in the future), go with zlib. Cheers, Seb -- Sébastien Lelong http://www.sirloon.net http://sirbot.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
