Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
On Mon, 28 May 2007 22:29:27 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I still cannot see why proprietary should mean with secret source code: its basic common meaning is owned by a proprietor and does not refer to closeness or secrecy. Your own words condemn you :-) This is an accurate description of linux. Linux is owned by a proprietor, namely whoever (singular or plural) happens to own the copyright(s). I've already explained in which sense a piece of free software can be considered to be not really owned by anyone, so I won't repeat the argument here. And anyway, the Linux kernel indeed (and unfortunately) has some non-free parts... -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpcfDqB0r0FN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
On Mon, 28 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:24:21 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote: Of course, but the usage of free there is merely an extension of its actual english meaning. A piece of free software is not able to act at will, nor is it exempt from subjection to the will of others. The whole point of free software is that it is exempt from subjection to the will of others. Your will does not impeed what I am able to do to Free Software, even if you hold the copyright upon it. A piece of non-free software belongs to a proprietor, in the sense that a monopoly over it is held by the copyright holder. Proprietary software is typically non-free, but the converse is not true. There are many pieces of software which are non-free but are decidedly not proprietary. Consider any of the pieces of software in non-free for which the source code is available. I still cannot see why proprietary should mean with secret source code: its basic common meaning is owned by a proprietor and does not refer to closeness or secrecy. If we are to use it in that sense, then it is completely meaningless in this discussion (unless you plan on distinguishing between PD and non-PD works) as every single copyrightable work has a copyright holder, and is therefore owned by a proprietor. Exclusivity is nearly a synonym for proprietary. Yes, exclusivity. When enough actions covered by your exclusive rights are permitted to everyone (as in Free Software), you have really little exclusivity left. That's why I don't think the use of the term proprietary as a synonym of non-free should be considered so strange or awkward. Because proprietary works are a subset of non-free works, a free work cannot also be proprietary. However, a non-free work does not necessarily have to be proprietary. This is why you should not use the terms interchangeably. This is the same reason why we talk about Free Software instead of merely talking about Open Source Software: a piece of free software cannot be closed, but an open work does not necessarily have to be free. It's not me. I'm not trying to invent new definitions, as I am not the only one who uses the term proprietary as equivalent to non-free. Many others seem to do so: one notable example is RMS and the FSF Neither RMS nor the FSF use proprietary interchangeably with non-free to the best of my knowledge. [At least, I've never heard RMS use it that way.] And frankly, even if they did, it wouldn't make their usage correct. Feel free to provide citations to back up your claims, though. Don Armstrong -- Personally, I think my choice in the mostest-superlative-computer wars has to be the HP-48 series of calculators. They'll run almost anything. And if they can't, while I'll just plug a Linux box into the serial port and load up the HP-48 VT-100 emulator. -- Jeff Dege, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
On Tue, 29 May 2007 03:15:37 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 28 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:24:21 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote: Of course, but the usage of free there is merely an extension of its actual english meaning. A piece of free software is not able to act at will, nor is it exempt from subjection to the will of others. The whole point of free software is that it is exempt from subjection to the will of others. Your will does not impeed what I am able to do to Free Software, even if you hold the copyright upon it. I see what you mean, but free software is not completely unrestricted by the will of its copyright holder(s) who can, for instance, prevent it from being merged with non-free code (by choosing a copyleft license). However, enough permissions are granted on free software, so that everyone has the right to fork it and adapt it to his/her own needs, even against the will of the original copyright holder, as I already said before. In this sense, free software is exempt from subjection to the will of others. In summary, I agree that the meaning of free in the context of software freedom is an extension of the common meaning of the word, but some interpretation and stretching has to be done in order to go from the latter to the former. A piece of non-free software belongs to a proprietor, in the sense that a monopoly over it is held by the copyright holder. Proprietary software is typically non-free, but the converse is not true. There are many pieces of software which are non-free but are decidedly not proprietary. Consider any of the pieces of software in non-free for which the source code is available. Again, I cannot see the direct link between the word proprietary and the concept of secrecy of source code. Since I am not an English native speaker, it could be just lack of English language knowledge. Anyway, the Italian language has the nouns proprietario (which means owner) and proprieta` (which means property): their definitions refer to the concepts of owning and exclusivity, but not to secrecy... I still cannot see why proprietary should mean with secret source code: its basic common meaning is owned by a proprietor and does not refer to closeness or secrecy. If we are to use it in that sense, then it is completely meaningless in this discussion (unless you plan on distinguishing between PD and non-PD works) as every single copyrightable work has a copyright holder, and is therefore owned by a proprietor. I don't use it in that sense, you were the one who insisted on consulting non-technical dictionaries and I simply did so. The first common meanings of the word proprietary seem to refer to the concept of property, owning, and trademark/patent/copyright. Exclusivity is nearly a synonym for proprietary. Yes, exclusivity. When enough actions covered by your exclusive rights are permitted to everyone (as in Free Software), you have really little exclusivity left. That's why I don't think the use of the term proprietary as a synonym of non-free should be considered so strange or awkward. Because proprietary works are a subset of non-free works, a free work cannot also be proprietary. However, a non-free work does not necessarily have to be proprietary. This is why you should not use the terms interchangeably. So, what's your definition of proprietary software, then? Software with source code kept secret? [...] It's not me. I'm not trying to invent new definitions, as I am not the only one who uses the term proprietary as equivalent to non-free. Many others seem to do so: one notable example is RMS and the FSF Neither RMS nor the FSF use proprietary interchangeably with non-free to the best of my knowledge. [At least, I've never heard RMS use it that way.] Just a nit-pick, not really interchangeably, because of semi-free software. I am deliberately neglecting semi-free software here. And frankly, even if they did, it wouldn't make their usage correct. Of course, as I said, my reference to FSF terminology was done just to show that I am not one who woke up early in the morning and came up with a brand-new definition of proprietary in the context of software freedom... My use of the term is similar to that of others. I obviously agree that RMS saying something does *not* necessarily make it true or correct. I am *against* appeal to authority. Feel free to provide citations to back up your claims, though. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/categories.html#FreeSoftware http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/categories.html#non-freeSoftware http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/categories.html#semi-freeSoftware http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? .
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: The first common meanings of the word proprietary seem to refer to the concept of property, owning, and trademark/patent/copyright. They refer to the concept of property which is *exclusively* owned and controlled, such that a single entity is able to market and sell it. what's your definition of proprietary software, then? Software with source code kept secret? Software whose use, modification, selling, or distribution is controlled exclusively by a single party, generally by restricting access to the source code and/or restrictive licencing agreements. Just a nit-pick, not really interchangeably, because of semi-free software. I am deliberately neglecting semi-free software here. Well, that's the root of our contention then. As proprietary software does not encompass the entire set of non-free software, you should not use the terms interchangeably. Don Armstrong -- All bad precedents began as justifiable measures. -- Gaius Julius Caesar in The Conspiracy of Catiline by Sallust http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:12:55 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] what's your definition of proprietary software, then? Software with source code kept secret? Software whose use, modification, selling, or distribution is controlled exclusively by a single party, generally by restricting access to the source code and/or restrictive licencing agreements. Seems very close to catch *all* non-free software. Even when access to the source code is granted, if restrictive licensing agreements are in place, it's proprietary software. As soon as *one* action among use, modification, selling and distribution, is controlled exclusively by a single party, it's proprietary software. Just a nit-pick, not really interchangeably, because of semi-free software. I am deliberately neglecting semi-free software here. Well, that's the root of our contention then. As proprietary software does not encompass the entire set of non-free software, you should not use the terms interchangeably. I simply consider semi-free software not *so* better than other non-free software. Consequently I do not insist that much on the distinction between semi-free software and the rest of non-free software: I just call it all proprietary software, more or less interchangeably with non-free software. But please note that the distinction you seem to have made so far is a different one: you have linked proprietary software with closeness and unavailability of source. The concept of semi-free software (as defined by the FSF) is instead based on for non-profit purposes only restrictions. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpKq85YeASBv.pgp Description: PGP signature
