Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why Not Haskell? (sidenote on licensing)
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 10:46:16AM +0100, Chris Kuklewicz wrote: [...] The GPL only gets in the way if you put it there by choosing to derive work from GPL code. Note that most commercial programs do not allow you the choice of deriving your work from theirs at all. The GPL adds to your free-as-in-freedom: you can derive work from others' GPL work and you can GPL also brings about restrictions to freedom-in-speech that are rarely mentioned: Say you develop the code for a client to run her production facilities. This code contains sensitive information about the way the facilities work and must not fall into the hands of the client's competitors. But if GPL is stuck to any part of the code and manages to infect the rest, the client can make you sign as many NDAs as there can be. The GPL still entitles you to sell it. I'm sure there are other scenarios in which the restritions that GPL places on the developer are equally prohibitive. GPL/LGPL is interesting, LGPL v3 may turn into something cool or not. (I heard they have problems sorting out the above scenario, too, or something more tricky, I forgot.) But placing restrictions on how the code may be used has lead to surprising problems. BSD on the other hand is a safe bet. cheers, matthias signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why Not Haskell? (sidenote on licensing)
There is a false statement that must be corrected, about NDA's. Matthias Fischmann wrote: On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 10:46:16AM +0100, Chris Kuklewicz wrote: [...] The GPL only gets in the way if you put it there by choosing to derive work from GPL code. Note that most commercial programs do not allow you the choice of deriving your work from theirs at all. The GPL adds to your free-as-in-freedom: you can derive work from others' GPL work and you can GPL also brings about restrictions to freedom-in-speech that are rarely mentioned: Say you develop the code for a client to run her production facilities. This code contains sensitive information about the way the facilities work and must not fall into the hands of the client's competitors. But if GPL is stuck to any part of the code and manages to infect the rest, the client can make you sign as many NDAs as there can be. The GPL is not a disease that infects. That is a metaphor made by people who hate such licenses. The GPL does not blow in the window or from someone's sneeze and get stuck to code. To introduce GPL derived code is a choice made be the programmer. You can always choose not to derive from GPL code, and you can always change your mind later and rewrite the derived code so you can remove it. Talking about biological metaphors is deliberately misleading. ...the client can make you sign as many NDAs as there can be. The GPL still entitles you to sell it. I'm sure there are other scenarios in which the restritions that GPL places on the developer are equally prohibitive. No. You are wrong. Google for GPL and NDA gives http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html : Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement? No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy of your version from you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or not) of that version. It does not give you permission to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis. Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement? Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA. You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but agree not to release them to anyone else unless the client says ok. In this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under any additional restrictions. The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version. In this scenario, the client will probably choose not to exercise that right, but does have the right. As the developer you can sign an NDA and it will bind you. But it will not bind the client. GPL/LGPL is interesting, LGPL v3 may turn into something cool or not. (I heard they have problems sorting out the above scenario, too, or something more tricky, I forgot.) But placing restrictions on how the code may be used has lead to surprising problems. BSD on the other hand is a safe bet. Note that there are many people who will not do work on a BSD project since a company can just come along and take it. People are free to choose GPL or BSD for their work and then other people are free to choose whether to derive work from them. But if there was no GPL and the only choice was BSD then much of the current GPL'd work would not exist. -- Chris ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why Not Haskell? (sidenote on licensing)
Matthias Fischmann wrote: But if GPL is stuck to any part of the code and manages to infect the rest, the client can make you sign as many NDAs as there can be. The GPL still entitles you to sell it. Nonsense. The GPL says, *if* you distribute a binary, *then* you also have to distribute the complete, machine readable source. It also specifically says that if that is impossible (because of an NDA or whatever), you must not distribute the software at all. Have you ever read the damn thing?! Udo. -- Wo die Macht geistlos ist, ist der Geist machtlos. -- aus einem Gipfelbuch signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why Not Haskell? (sidenote on licensing)
Note that there are many people who will not do work on a BSD project since a company can just come along and take it. People are free to choose GPL or BSD for their work and then other people are free to choose whether to derive work from them. But this is just the thing, isn't it? The GPL has its purpose, and is a great license for applications like Apache or RedHat, where you don't want companies to just come along and take the code. But for library code, which is what this discussion was all about from the beginning, why ever would you *not* want anyone, anywhere, to take and use your code? And in particular so for Haskell, where we are striving hard to make industry catch on. /Niklas ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why Not Haskell? (sidenote on licensing)
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 12:57:47PM +0100, Chris Kuklewicz wrote: To: Matthias Fischmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: haskell-cafe@haskell.org From: Chris Kuklewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 12:57:47 +0100 Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why Not Haskell? (sidenote on licensing) There is a false statement that must be corrected, about NDA's. Sorry. Just learned something, thanks! Matthias Fischmann wrote: On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 10:46:16AM +0100, Chris Kuklewicz wrote: [...] The GPL only gets in the way if you put it there by choosing to derive work from GPL code. Note that most commercial programs do not allow you the choice of deriving your work from theirs at all. The GPL adds to your free-as-in-freedom: you can derive work from others' GPL work and you can GPL also brings about restrictions to freedom-in-speech that are rarely mentioned: Say you develop the code for a client to run her production facilities. This code contains sensitive information about the way the facilities work and must not fall into the hands of the client's competitors. But if GPL is stuck to any part of the code and manages to infect the rest, the client can make you sign as many NDAs as there can be. The GPL is not a disease that infects. That is a metaphor made by people who hate such licenses. The GPL does not blow in the window or from someone's sneeze and get stuck to code. To introduce GPL derived code is a choice made be the programmer. You can always choose not to derive from GPL code, and you can always change your mind later and rewrite the derived code so you can remove it. Talking about biological metaphors is deliberately misleading. Sorry, I didn't mean to offend anybody, or be misleading. I like GPL, but I also like the disease metaphor (although is not as much being sneezed at as having sex with somebody :-). And it's really not as easy to control as you suggest: If you ever take in a single patch under the GPL, or even implement a new feature in an obvious way that has been implemented by somebody else under the GPL, you are in trouble. AFAIR this happened to SSH.com with the bigint code in ssh-v1.3, but if you contradict me now I have to take your word for it. (So please do! :) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html : Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement? No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy of your version from you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or not) of that version. It does not give you permission to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis. (In my example I was worried about *less* restrictive, but the subsequent points seem to cover that, too.) GPL/LGPL is interesting, LGPL v3 may turn into something cool or not. (I heard they have problems sorting out the above scenario, too, or something more tricky, I forgot.) But placing restrictions on how the code may be used has lead to surprising problems. BSD on the other hand is a safe bet. Note that there are many people who will not do work on a BSD project since a company can just come along and take it. People are free to choose GPL or BSD for their work and then other people are free to choose whether to derive work from them. But if there was no GPL and the only choice was BSD then much of the current GPL'd work would not exist. I tend to agree. Would be fun to have some empirical data to boost the accuracy of the 'much' part of this. cheers, Matthias signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why Not Haskell? (sidenote on licensing)
Matthias Fischmann wrote: And it's really not as easy to control as you suggest: If you ever take in a single patch under the GPL, This kind of thing doesn't happen by accident. Patches don't magically creep into your code, you have to apply them deliberately and you should always know whether you are allowed to do so. Applying a BSD-licensed patch and neglecting to mention the author may get you into exactly as much trouble. or even implement a new feature in an obvious way that has been implemented by somebody else under the GPL, you are in trouble. Bullshit again, for the GPL applies to code, not to ideas. Unless you believe that copyright law does indeed apply to ideas, *and* that a GPL-developer will come after you for reimplementing (not copying) his work, you have nothing to fear unless you outright steal code. May I humbly suggest some reading, like the text of the GPL itself and then something basic about copyright law? AFAIR this happened to SSH.com with the bigint code in ssh-v1.3 SSH included GMP, which was licensed under the GPL. Nothing happened there, only the OpenSSH folks disliked the license and reimplemented GMP. Udo. -- The imagination of nature is far, far greater than the imagination of man. -- Richard Feynman signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why Not Haskell? (sidenote on licensing)
Udo, us: mf: AFAIR this happened to SSH.com with the bigint code in ssh-v1.3 SSH included GMP, which was licensed under the GPL. Nothing happened there, only the OpenSSH folks disliked the license and reimplemented GMP. ... and had to fight an ugly battle over the question whether the reimplementation was legitimate reuse of ideas or code theft. I don't understand why you have to be so insulting. I was making a false claim because I didn't know better, but I don't consider that a good reason to claim everything I am saying is bullshit and start a bar fight. Anyway this is not only getting ugly but also way off topic. I'm out. cheers, Matthias signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
