Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
At 1:03 am -0700 10/9/03, Richard Gaskin wrote: Scott Raney wrote: A couple of points on the license-type debate: 1) We don't really care what license you use: anything from public domain (least restrictive) to Artistic License (what PERL uses) to GPL (most restrictive) would be fine. 2) A concern with using GPL is that anything moved into your application with the Resource Mover results in some of the virus-like aspects of GPL kicking it (i.e., you'd be required to release a version of your app without those stacks so the end-user could replace them). This makes LGPL a better bet, if something even this restrictive is desired. If Scott's not interested in picking a license I'm inclined to advocate public domain. I'm for this too. One possible problem not discussed so far is the inclusion of libUrl with the IDE. The same (identical) library script is distributed with Rev, and I don't imagine they would like it to be covered by any of the more restrictive licenses. (And I don't suppose it could be.) The status of libUrl is not entirely clear, but when it was first started, I know Scott saw it as a public domain library. RunRev subsequently took over responsibility (and sponsorship) of the library. I can't see RunRev agreeing to a GPL kind of license for libUrl at least. (By the way, I'll continue to make any updates for libUrl available for the MC IDE. I guess these will continue to be posted on the RunRev site, but when a site is finally settled for the MC IDE, I suppose that would be a more appropriate location.) Cheers Dave ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
Ken Ray wrote: The only concern about PD I have is that it is just that: public domain. Anyone can take what we have and do whatever they want with it, including marketing it commercially. In other words, PD may be too a broad license. Do we care? No. If someone wants to take the MC IDE (MINUS the engine - since that's proprietary) and do something with it, more power to 'em. It's like trying to sell a car without an engine... Ken that's not the point. The only issue here is about user modifications of code and components and whether these are required by the licence to be submitted back to the project. With a public domain style license such as the MIT licence they are not, which means that a company can use the MC IDE, or take code and components from the IDE, modify them with some lovely improvements and then protect the stack / code so that no-one else can benefit from these improvements. There are three ways people tend to take this: 1) Some people consider this stealing free code donated by other people and then charging for it - like we do with the environment - and get all irate. 2) Others take a pragmatic approach and look at which licence stimulates the evolution of (their) public code most. 3) Others still take a competative approach and ask which license best supports the evolution of (their) public code in the face of competition with the commercial sector. The only consideration I suspect interests this list is 2) - which approach stimulates the evolution of the IDE most. This is a long term consideration as in the short term all we are doing is maintaining a static IDE with a few tweaks here and there. That is the thing about evolution and open source change happens by small incremental changes (save the odd Revolution :) which build on each other to make a big difference. The importance of each change is not noticed at the time. I feel that this is important to our community because while we have one of the best tools on the market and probably the best user community, we have a problem evolving the contributions we make. How many people out there have been a little dissapointed after submitting a udeful contribution and finding that they less than they hoped in terms of user improvements? I feel we have a chance to start in a small way to create an environment which addresses this with the MC IDE being made open source by Scott. I agree with Richard that we should start by just maintaining the IDE, but by learning from the open source community how best to do this, we are more likely to avoid this project stagnating into nothing more than a dead end archive, and give it a chance to evolve into something much more interesting. Choosing the right license is a part of this. This just emphasises the importance of the choice (it is important even though most users don't really give a fig :) The argument regarding the choice between public domain (such as the MIT style open source initiative OSI licence) and the lesser GPL (LGPL) licence is all about which achieves this evolution most effectively. Some (more recently) argue that the very restrictions (cohersion) in LGPL style licenses actually hinder the process by putting people off (notably companies that have a problem with the inability to protect their code improvements), others insist that without this the quality of the public code deteriorates over time. There is no consensus on this point - although I detect a slow shift in preference for public domain style licenses in the open source community. I don't usually like long rants about licenses on public lists - so i hope my 2 cents worth hasn't bored everyone, and i'd usually recommend taking this sort of discussion off list into an interested subgroup (reporting back) - but Richard bullied me into this :) ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
Dave Cragg wrote: One possible problem not discussed so far is the inclusion of libUrl with the IDE. The same (identical) library script is distributed with Rev, and I don't imagine they would like it to be covered by any of the more restrictive licenses. (And I don't suppose it could be.) The status of libUrl is not entirely clear, but when it was first started, I know Scott saw it as a public domain library. RunRev subsequently took over responsibility (and sponsorship) of the library. I can't see RunRev agreeing to a GPL kind of license for libUrl at least. Good point. RunRev do not have a clear policy regarding these libraries (which is one reason i think there are not more quality user contributed libraries). They *should* at some time take a hard look at this, but right now my guess is they've got other things on their plate. This is a loss to the community, which I am sure they would be more than happy for us to take an initiative on. (By the way, I'll continue to make any updates for libUrl available for the MC IDE. I guess these will continue to be posted on the RunRev site, but when a site is finally settled for the MC IDE, I suppose that would be a more appropriate location.) It would seem clear to me that if the MC IDE is open source and the MC IDE contains as is libURL then libURL is open source - we just need to decide on a license. Dave if you are making user contributions to libURl and not signing over copyright to RunRev for each change then this can cause a problem for RunRev over who owns the copyright of the aggregate work. A clear open source licence protects RunRev and us from these type of issues. ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
At 10:22 am +0100 11/9/03, David Bovill wrote: (By the way, I'll continue to make any updates for libUrl available for the MC IDE. I guess these will continue to be posted on the RunRev site, but when a site is finally settled for the MC IDE, I suppose that would be a more appropriate location.) It would seem clear to me that if the MC IDE is open source and the MC IDE contains as is libURL then libURL is open source - we just need to decide on a license. Dave if you are making user contributions to libURl and not signing over copyright to RunRev for each change then this can cause a problem for RunRev over who owns the copyright of the aggregate work. A clear open source licence protects RunRev and us from these type of issues. Any copyright attaching to my contributions belongs to RunRev. However, my work built on already existing material, and I don't know the exact status of that earlier library. (Although my understanding is that it was public domain.) I don't really anticipate any problem here as long as libUrl is considered public domain (or even if it is subject to runRev's own license, as we're all going to be Rev licensees assuming we renew.). But it would be nicer to get this cleared up. I'll contact Kevin Co. on this matter. However, there is a more general issue with GPL or similar licenses relating to parts of the MC IDE that we might include in our developed apps. In addition to libUrl, there are all the other things listed in the Resource Mover stack (message box, cursors, etc.). I don't think anyone would want to see their finished apps having to become open source just because they included the print dialog that comes with the IDE. Cheers Dave ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
David Bovill wrote: 1) Some people consider this stealing free code donated by other people and then charging for it - like we do with the environment - and get all irate. If they can find a Rev user who already has a great-looking IDE to pay for the MC IDE which would also be freely available, I applaud their marketing skills and would like to hire them to sell ice to eskimos. 2) Others take a pragmatic approach and look at which licence stimulates the evolution of (their) public code most. 3) Others still take a competative approach and ask which license best supports the evolution of (their) public code in the face of competition with the commercial sector. The only consideration I suspect interests this list is 2) - which approach stimulates the evolution of the IDE most. This is a long term consideration as in the short term all we are doing is maintaining a static IDE with a few tweaks here and there. That is the thing about evolution and open source change happens by small incremental changes (save the odd Revolution :) which build on each other to make a big difference. The importance of each change is not noticed at the time. I feel that this is important to our community because while we have one of the best tools on the market and probably the best user community, we have a problem evolving the contributions we make. How many people out there have been a little dissapointed after submitting a udeful contribution and finding that they less than they hoped in terms of user improvements? I feel we have a chance to start in a small way to create an environment which addresses this with the MC IDE being made open source by Scott. I agree with Richard that we should start by just maintaining the IDE, but by learning from the open source community how best to do this, we are more likely to avoid this project stagnating into nothing more than a dead end archive, and give it a chance to evolve into something much more interesting. Choosing the right license is a part of this. This just emphasises the importance of the choice (it is important even though most users don't really give a fig :) The argument regarding the choice between public domain (such as the MIT style open source initiative OSI licence) and the lesser GPL (LGPL) licence is all about which achieves this evolution most effectively. I'm really into simplicity and freedom. If the license is public domain (or MIT Public Domain, which may have an additional benefit of better ensuring the disclaimer is not removed from the work), then people can choose to contribute to the commnunity or not as they wish. Why force someone to share? That doesn't feel like sharing to me. And if that enforced sharing carries any possibility at all of affecting any commercial derivative work few of us could afford to use it. It may be the case that I'm completely underestimating the world-changing possibilities of the MC IDE. I've been seeing it as a maintenance and modest enhancement project not likely to ever be of interest more more than a few dozen people. RunRev has some great growth plans for Revolution, and their IDE is feature-rich and attractive. Even if they increase market share fpr the language we all love by a factor of 20 in the next year, most (if not all) of the new users will be using the Rev IDE. If there's an opportunity for an enhancement to any IDE that uses Transcript (the artist formerly known as MetaTalk), it would be a disservice to that enhancement and its potential audience not to have it also run in Rev in addition to MC. The MC IDE is a great tool and a valuable test bed for the engine. But the future of Transcript's market share (and really its present as well) is with Rev. Let's see what we can do to keep the MC IDE the nimble, efficient friend it's been to us for years. There's no need to limit any significant plans for Transcript-based tools to it; dual use seems optimal for all. Some (more recently) argue that the very restrictions (cohersion) in LGPL style licenses actually hinder the process by putting people off (notably companies that have a problem with the inability to protect their code improvements), others insist that without this the quality of the public code deteriorates over time. There is no consensus on this point - although I detect a slow shift in preference for public domain style licenses in the open source community. I don't usually like long rants about licenses on public lists - so i hope my 2 cents worth hasn't bored everyone, and i'd usually recommend taking this sort of discussion off list into an interested subgroup (reporting back) - but Richard bullied me into this :) No, I merely reminded you that when the members of this list were asked earlier if they felt such discussions should be here or elsewhere, there was a nearly-unanimous sentiment that they should be here. And I didn't bully; I begged. ;) -- Richard Gaskin
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
From: J. Landman Gay [EMAIL PROTECTED] I had never been to SourceForge, so I took a look yesterday. I think the lack of ftp access is a big drawback, and I think that if we are required to find a CVS client (which may not even exist for OS X users, I don't know) and get everything set up with the requirements CVS expects (public keys, encryption, whatever) that we will discourage people from participating. It will be too much work for anyone except those who are especially committed to the project, mostly because of the effort it takes before one can even access the group. I think we want to encourage casual participation, whether that means just uploading a contribution on the spur of the moment or downloading a file on a whim. Easy is good. Open is good. Yahoo Groups is a convenient, accessible, free, and neutral option. People can upload files and anyone can get them. It provides a place for discussion or mailing lists if we want them, but doesn't require we use those features. It allows easy transfer of moderatorship from one person to another if the current Poobah decides to hand the reins to someone else. So what about Yahoo? I agree with Jacque. I also found SourceForge a little daunting. Although Yahoo! dumps those lovely tails with every message, it might be a bit easier for all of us to handle... Ray G. Miller __ Turtlelips Productions 4009 Everett Ave. Oakland, CA 94602 MailTo:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (V) 510.530.1971 (F) 510.482.3491 ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
David Bovill wrote: Richard Gaskin wrote: That would be ideal. I'm glad he's looking into it; the first two times I asked him he said it vouldn't be done, but it's so common with most hosting services it seemed reasonable to ask. Hope it works out. If we can use that section of his server for FTP space, wouldn't we be able to put the project page there? Don't think we are talking about ftp space on his server - rather pointing a subdomain to the site I've offered to set up and Ray Miller has kindly offered to contribute towards the costs of. That is how I read that as well. Furthermore, I am not sure anymore that this is such a good idea after all, even though distributing over mc site was the first thing that came to my mind. Since MC as corporation continues to function and remains a commercial entity, it may be a good to separate the open source effort more explicitely to avoid ambiguities. A link from MC's site as well as a link from Rev's should work well enough to give us visibility. May be we should even make another step and come up with a new name for this product. Robert Brenstein ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 03:55 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Robert Brenstein wrote: BTW, the only archive I am aware of is at Mark Talluto's site, and may or may not be there for ever. MC and Rev have offered only the latest version so far. Besides, they do not offer just engines but full packages for download. I would advocate that RunRev provide an archive of all engines going back as far as possible, at least to v2.4. Anyone know if they have plans for such an archive? I will maintain the archive I have for another year at a minimum. If I decide to close that server, I will let you guys know in advance so that it can be maintained by someone else. I use the site for testing purposes. The MC downloads do not take up that much space, so I do not have any reason to close it. I have a regular amount of downloads for these files so it seems that it is useful. I am glad to be a part of this at this level. Best regards, Mark Talluto http://www.canelasoftware.com Great to know your plans and thanks for keeping the files, Mark. However, your note proves that we need to have a provision to keep them elsewhere in the future, although our esteem honcho may relax as he does not have to maintain the archive in the foreseeable future :) Robert ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
Scott Raney wrote: A couple of points on the license-type debate: 1) We don't really care what license you use: anything from public domain (least restrictive) to Artistic License (what PERL uses) to GPL (most restrictive) would be fine. 2) A concern with using GPL is that anything moved into your application with the Resource Mover results in some of the virus-like aspects of GPL kicking it (i.e., you'd be required to release a version of your app without those stacks so the end-user could replace them). This makes LGPL a better bet, if something even this restrictive is desired. If Scott's not interested in picking a license I'm inclined to advocate public domain. Anything I would contribute to the IDE is fair game for fair use anyway, but like many of us I need to ensure that any parts of MC that I include in my products or client work does not invalidate any proprietary copyright considerations for the larger commercial work. Maybe the LGPL will cover us, maybe it'll cover Rev if they choose to use any of it, maybe, maybe, maybe I like the virally-enforced freedom of GPL, if for no other reason than the beautiful irony of seeing enforced and freedom side by side. ;) But free-as-in-speech-and-beer software isn't central to my personal mission in life. If it's important for the Free Software Foundation, maybe they could provide us with legal counsel to sort this out and ensure Rev's legal defense if they borrow three lines from something in the MC IDE and some nutcase decides to sue to free the engine. That's a freedom I can live without. Even if such a case were found to be wholly without merit, as they say, it would be a distraction from meaningful work. To my knowledge there has not yet been any defining precedent set by a US court for GPL enforcement one way or another. Rather than spend too much time exploring options to protect a copyright holder who expresses no interest in such protection, it seems public domain is the most free of free software options; free as in speech, beer, and guacamole. Any reasons not to? Also - SourceGorge doesn't deem common FTP to be worthy, requiring CVS. Ugh. Anyone know a good CVS client for OS X? Or maybe we've been thinking too hard about all of this, including SourceForge. After all, just how much respect do we expect to earn from that community by posting a bunch of stuff we might call open source that's in a proprietary format and requires a proprietary 4GL to open? So if not for the community, then for the tools? How many of us have (and like) CVS tools? I'd love to be able to transfer stuff in MC natively, which can be done with FTP today. And if not the best fit for its commnunity or the tools, are we really just looking for neutral Web hosting? And all the while as we continue to ponder the various options for all this without a single line of code written, a bunch of smart folks have set up the Revolution_IPC group at Yahoo and have been sharing and updating a number of useful libraries for months, no fuss no muss. This is all so not about code ::sigh::: Here's today's moment of Zen: Most of us already have some tweaked form of the MC IDE on our drives right now and we're happy. Is there significant benefit to pooling our collective resources to maintain something that Rev is already obligated not to break? -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation Developer of WebMerge: Publish any database on any Web site ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com Tel: 323-225-3717 AIM: FourthWorldInc ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Fwd: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
Note: A resend of a post that never seemed to make it through... ... notes for the discussion archives and for those interested in licensing... Begin forwarded message: From: Ian Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue Sep 9, 2003 9:23:53 PM Canada/Eastern To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL) Hi Richard, David, All, I've been following the open source MC IDE discussion and commend the initiative being taken and everyones efforts to move the project forward. The discussion brought back some memories of a time when I was involved in a similar effort, back in 2000 (Advanced Authoring Format (aafassociation.org)). We, the AAF association membership, were at a similar point in time as the MC community is, planning the move of (AAF) technology from a closed development environment to an open source one (SourceForge). I recalled an open source presentation I made at the time and thought it may be pertinent to the current discussion. I just checked and it is available on-line at the AAF Association web site: http://aafassociation.org/devcon00/index.html The AAF SDK was eventually moved over to SourceForge with an all new open source license that Avid drafted up, AAFÂ Public Source license I believe? The AAF Sourceforege home page is located here. http://sourceforge.net/projects/aaf/ All just an fyi Regards Ian On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 04:49 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Message: 12 Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 21:09:48 +0100 From: David Bovill [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Richard Gaskin wrote: Has anyone checked: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html I read it. It seems a good discussion of GPL issues as they relate to libraries. What do you see as the implications for the MC IDE? GNU use LGPL (lesser GLP) for libraries - and the reasons they argue here are specific to their overal strategy of giving open source software an edge over closed source solutions - most of the arguments do not apply to our situation as we have a closed engine. As per my previous post - replace 'library' with 'MC IDE' and the artilces at gnu.org covering the two main licences make more sense. The important point is that you are not allowed to distribute GPL code with any closed compnents that the GPL code 'links to'. In my reading this is exactly what the code in the MC IDE does, which means the license would prevent you using the code (or to be more precise distibuting the code with any applications you create). That is why AFAIK we have to use LGPL (or a similar) for the MC IDE and aany open source libraries that are released.
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
J. Landman Gay wrote: After reading all the responses, I'm going to vote for this. It seems to me that public domain is the easiest solution, doesn't require any special handling, allows anyone to do anything without legal entanglments, and is just generally easier to manage. So I vote for public domain. Public Domain (MIT licence) is a good option. Ian Gordon has suggested ways of encouraging people to contibute code back to the main fork if they download form the 'official' site - which seems promising. Yahoo Groups is a convenient, accessible, free, and neutral option. People can upload files and anyone can get them. It provides a place for discussion or mailing lists if we want them, but doesn't require we use those features. It allows easy transfer of moderatorship from one person to another if the current Poobah decides to hand the reins to someone else. So what about Yahoo? I'm for hosting a new neutral and open site with MC CGI scripting and direct MC ftp access - adding proper secure moderated Sourceforge backend for official releases - when we get to that stage. A Yahoo site could get us up and running and I'm not totally against that - we just can't integrate it properly into the MC environment. I really don't like switching back and forth between MC and email / browser stuff - and you cannot integrate the MC IDE into Yahoo groups (I've tried:). I would really like to see a web site properly integrated into this project and would be prepared to cough up and set it up ( a few paypal donations would help :) I'd then set up a scripted submission from this web site to the Sourceforge CVS (which would be permament, secure and free). Ideally if this proved a useful service RunRev would contribute (to) the hosting costs. ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
J. Landman Gay wrote: After reading all the responses, I'm going to vote for this. It seems to me that public domain is the easiest solution, doesn't require any special handling, allows anyone to do anything without legal entanglments, and is just generally easier to manage. So I vote for public domain. Public Domain (MIT licence) is a good option. Ian Gordon has suggested ways of encouraging people to contibute code back to the main fork if they download form the 'official' site - which seems promising. The only concern about PD I have is that it is just that: public domain. Anyone can take what we have and do whatever they want with it, including marketing it commercially. In other words, PD may be too a broad license. Do we care? Robert Brenstein ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
Robert Brenstein wrote: The only concern about PD I have is that it is just that: public domain. Anyone can take what we have and do whatever they want with it, including marketing it commercially. In other words, PD may be too a broad license. Do we care? Scott doesn't, and it's his baby. Anything I put into the IDE would be fair game. If I need to protect something I'll just make a plug-in. Besides, it's only a risk to the degree that someone can get people to pay for something that's also freely available. And in this case it's even less likely to be an issue since the file frmat is proprietary and requires a license from Rev to use. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation Developer of WebMerge: Publish any database on any Web site ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com Tel: 323-225-3717 AIM: FourthWorldInc ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
Robert Brenstein wrote: The only concern about PD I have is that it is just that: public domain. Anyone can take what we have and do whatever they want with it, including marketing it commercially. In other words, PD may be too a broad license. Do we care? Scott doesn't, and it's his baby. Anything I put into the IDE would be fair game. If I need to protect something I'll just make a plug-in. Besides, it's only a risk to the degree that someone can get people to pay for something that's also freely available. And in this case it's even less likely to be an issue since the file frmat is proprietary and requires a license from Rev to use. -- Richard Gaskin Good point. I sort of forgot that one must buy Rev license in order to use the engine and MC IDE is just an alternative to Rev's own at that point. Robert ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
David Bovill wrote: Richard Gaskin wrote: David Bovill wrote: The simple story is to use the LGPL if you may wish to distribute the open source code with 'linked' libraries (read IDE or engine here) which is not GPL'd. Hmmm I had never considered including the Rev engine with the MC IDE distribution. It would be convenient, given the dissection required for OS X, but in my mind it keeps everything clean and simple to distribute only the IDE. It's more serious than that: if 'you' can't distribute the the MC IDE alongside the engine - then no-one can! Not on a CDROM or anything. The license preserves all rights and passes them down the chain intact - for better of for worse. In my admittedly small view, my interest is in maintaining the MC IDE, which implies distributing stacks only. The IDE is the only thing that's open source, and if only for the sake of a simplicity and a small download I would prefer not to co-mingle GLP'd and non-GPL's stuff in the same distro. I can't claim to have any useful legal opinion on the matter, merely a usability one: in the past, the MC IDE and the engine were released simultaneously. Now that the development of these is decoupled it seems reasonable to decouple the distros as well. I'll leave it for Rev to describe their own licensing terms. I just want to help maintain the MC IDE in the simplest way possible. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation Developer of WebMerge: Publish any database on any Web site ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com Tel: 323-225-3717 AIM: FourthWorldInc ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
Richard Gaskin wrote: David Bovill wrote: The simple story is to use the LGPL if you may wish to distribute the open source code with 'linked' libraries (read IDE or engine here) which is not GPL'd. Hmmm I had never considered including the Rev engine with the MC IDE distribution. It would be convenient, given the dissection required for OS X, but in my mind it keeps everything clean and simple to distribute only the IDE. Creating distribution packages, as Scott used to do, may not be worth the effort for this group, but it may be desirable to have an option to make engines available on IDE web site for a single-stop downloading. We do not have to have them, but... Robert Brenstein ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
Robert Brenstein wrote: Richard Gaskin wrote: David Bovill wrote: The simple story is to use the LGPL if you may wish to distribute the open source code with 'linked' libraries (read IDE or engine here) which is not GPL'd. Hmmm I had never considered including the Rev engine with the MC IDE distribution. It would be convenient, given the dissection required for OS X, but in my mind it keeps everything clean and simple to distribute only the IDE. Creating distribution packages, as Scott used to do, may not be worth the effort for this group, but it may be desirable to have an option to make engines available on IDE web site for a single-stop downloading. We do not have to have them, but... A link to Rev's engine download page would be essential. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation Developer of WebMerge: Publish any database on any Web site ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com Tel: 323-225-3717 AIM: FourthWorldInc ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
Richard Gaskin wrote: Robert Brenstein wrote: Creating distribution packages, as Scott used to do, may not be worth the effort for this group, but it may be desirable to have an option to make engines available on IDE web site for a single-stop downloading. We do not have to have them, but... A link to Rev's engine download page would be essential. I have noticed a regular set of posts requiring after a particular version of th MC engine on a particular platform. I recall that someone is hosting an archive of sorts somewhere - and I would have thought that the best place to put this was on this free shared web site (everything in one place). We have 100MB of space. ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
David Bovill wrote: Richard Gaskin wrote: Robert Brenstein wrote: Creating distribution packages, as Scott used to do, may not be worth the effort for this group, but it may be desirable to have an option to make engines available on IDE web site for a single-stop downloading. We do not have to have them, but... A link to Rev's engine download page would be essential. I have noticed a regular set of posts requiring after a particular version of th MC engine on a particular platform. I recall that someone is hosting an archive of sorts somewhere - and I would have thought that the best place to put this was on this free shared web site (everything in one place). We have 100MB of space. The MC IDE will be at SourceForge, on Scott's recommendation. The engine is available at RunRev.com, and since releases of the engine and releases of the MC IDE will not likely coincide it seems simpler to keep the download small by not including the engine. Additionally, keeping the open source IDE distro separate from the proprietary engine clarifies potential misunderstanding about license applicability. Am I overlooking somethimg? -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation Developer of WebMerge: Publish any database on any Web site ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com Tel: 323-225-3717 AIM: FourthWorldInc ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
From: Richard Gaskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Bovill wrote: The simple story is to use the LGPL if you may wish to distribute the open source code with 'linked' libraries (read IDE or engine here) which is not GPL'd. Hmmm I had never considered including the Rev engine with the MC IDE distribution. It would be convenient, given the dissection required for OS X, but in my mind it keeps everything clean and simple to distribute only the IDE. Has anyone checked: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html Ray G. Miller __ Turtlelips Productions 4009 Everett Ave. Oakland, CA 94602 MailTo:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (V) 510.530.1971 (F) 510.482.3491 ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
From: David Bovill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert Brenstein wrote: Creating distribution packages, as Scott used to do, may not be worth the effort for this group, but it may be desirable to have an option to make engines available on IDE web site for a single-stop downloading. We do not have to have them, but... A link to Rev's engine download page would be essential. I have noticed a regular set of posts requiring after a particular version of th MC engine on a particular platform. I recall that someone is hosting an archive of sorts somewhere - and I would have thought that the best place to put this was on this free shared web site (everything in one place). We have 100MB of space. And again, all this may be moot. If the new and improved MC IDE is created and implemented as envisioned, then Rev will probably include it as an alternative IDE. This would be the best of both possible worlds. Ray G. Miller __ Turtlelips Productions 4009 Everett Ave. Oakland, CA 94602 MailTo:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (V) 510.530.1971 (F) 510.482.3491 ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
Ray G. Miller wrote: David Bovill wrote: The simple story is to use the LGPL if you may wish to distribute the open source code with 'linked' libraries (read IDE or engine here) which is not GPL'd. Hmmm I had never considered including the Rev engine with the MC IDE distribution. It would be convenient, given the dissection required for OS X, but in my mind it keeps everything clean and simple to distribute only the IDE. Has anyone checked: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html I read it. It seems a good discussion of GPL issues as they relate to libraries. What do you see as the implications for the MC IDE? -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation Developer of WebMerge: Publish any database on any Web site ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com Tel: 323-225-3717 AIM: FourthWorldInc ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
Ray G. Miller wrote: If the new and improved MC IDE is created and implemented as envisioned, then Rev will probably include it as an alternative IDE. This would be the best of both possible worlds. They might, but rather than increase the size of the download I suspect such support to be merely a link from Rev's site to the (soon to be) IDE page at metacard.com. While we may be enamored of MC, one persom's simple is another's spartan, and you can tell new customers a million times that something is unsupported, but telling them a million times eats time and resources. ;) Tuviah seems supportive of the effort, recognizing the usefulness of maintaining the IDE as a test bed for the engine. But beyond that, with Rev making continual improvements to the main product IDE, I'm guessing their interest in the MC IDE would likely be minimal. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation Developer of WebMerge: Publish any database on any Web site ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com Tel: 323-225-3717 AIM: FourthWorldInc ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
Richard Gaskin wrote: Has anyone checked: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html I read it. It seems a good discussion of GPL issues as they relate to libraries. What do you see as the implications for the MC IDE? GNU use LGPL (lesser GLP) for libraries - and the reasons they argue here are specific to their overal strategy of giving open source software an edge over closed source solutions - most of the arguments do not apply to our situation as we have a closed engine. As per my previous post - replace 'library' with 'MC IDE' and the artilces at gnu.org covering the two main licences make more sense. The important point is that you are not allowed to distribute GPL code with any closed compnents that the GPL code 'links to'. In my reading this is exactly what the code in the MC IDE does, which means the license would prevent you using the code (or to be more precise distibuting the code with any applications you create). That is why AFAIK we have to use LGPL (or a similar) for the MC IDE and aany open source libraries that are released. ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
David Bovill wrote: Richard Gaskin wrote: Has anyone checked: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html I read it. It seems a good discussion of GPL issues as they relate to libraries. What do you see as the implications for the MC IDE? GNU use LGPL (lesser GLP) for libraries - and the reasons they argue here are specific to their overal strategy of giving open source software an edge over closed source solutions - most of the arguments do not apply to our situation as we have a closed engine. As per my previous post - replace 'library' with 'MC IDE' and the artilces at gnu.org covering the two main licences make more sense. The important point is that you are not allowed to distribute GPL code with any closed compnents that the GPL code 'links to'. In my reading this is exactly what the code in the MC IDE does, which means the license would prevent you using the code (or to be more precise distibuting the code with any applications you create). That is why AFAIK we have to use LGPL (or a similar) for the MC IDE and aany open source libraries that are released. I'll leave that sort of stuff for Scott. I'm just a code-monkey poohbah, willing to use any license he sees fit. ;) -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation Developer of WebMerge: Publish any database on any Web site ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com Tel: 323-225-3717 AIM: FourthWorldInc ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
The engine is available at RunRev.com, and since releases of the engine and releases of the MC IDE will not likely coincide it seems simpler to keep the download small by not including the engine. Additionally, keeping the open source IDE distro separate from the proprietary engine clarifies potential misunderstanding about license applicability. Am I overlooking somethimg? Well, there is a consensus that the IDE should be available for downloads separately from engines, so you are inline with others here. However, there were a couple suggestions to have engines (separately from IDE) for downloads from SourceForge. This will allow us to keep an archive of older engines and avoid potential troubles when Rev updates the engine but for whatever reason MC IDE should continue to be used with the previous version of the engine. It is not likely scenerio but surely plausible, particularly during transition periods. One should keep in mind that each version of MC IDE is coupled to the engine through version number check, so each engine update will require modification to IDE. Robert ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
Robert Brenstein wrote: Well, there is a consensus that the IDE should be available for downloads separately from engines, so you are inline with others here. However, there were a couple suggestions to have engines (separately from IDE) for downloads from SourceForge. This will allow us to keep an archive of older engines and avoid potential troubles when Rev updates the engine but for whatever reason MC IDE should continue to be used with the previous version of the engine. It is not likely scenerio but surely plausible, particularly during transition periods. One should keep in mind that each version of MC IDE is coupled to the engine through version number check, so each engine update will require modification to IDE. The version-checking in the IDE can (and arguably should) change. There's already an archive of engines out there. I have no trouble linking to it, but would prefer not to have to maintain such an archive myself if possible. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation Developer of WebMerge: Publish any database on any Web site ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com Tel: 323-225-3717 AIM: FourthWorldInc ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
Robert Brenstein wrote: Well, there is a consensus that the IDE should be available for downloads separately from engines, so you are inline with others here. However, there were a couple suggestions to have engines (separately from IDE) for downloads from SourceForge. This will allow us to keep an archive of older engines and avoid potential troubles when Rev updates the engine but for whatever reason MC IDE should continue to be used with the previous version of the engine. It is not likely scenerio but surely plausible, particularly during transition periods. One should keep in mind that each version of MC IDE is coupled to the engine through version number check, so each engine update will require modification to IDE. The version-checking in the IDE can (and arguably should) change. Yes, but can we program it with clear conscience to accept future releases of the engine without testing first? There's already an archive of engines out there. I have no trouble linking to it, but would prefer not to have to maintain such an archive myself if possible. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation Developer of WebMerge: Publish any database on any Web site I am not sure that there is anything to maintaining such an archive. You put a file on the server and that's it. Anyway, we do NOT have to have it. We are talking about an option to have it should we want/need it in the future. In other words, it would be nice if the licensing did not preclude that for no justifiable reason. BTW, the only archive I am aware of is at Mark Talluto's site, and may or may not be there for ever. MC and Rev have offered only the latest version so far. Besides, they do not offer just engines but full packages for download. Robert ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 03:55 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Robert Brenstein wrote: BTW, the only archive I am aware of is at Mark Talluto's site, and may or may not be there for ever. MC and Rev have offered only the latest version so far. Besides, they do not offer just engines but full packages for download. I would advocate that RunRev provide an archive of all engines going back as far as possible, at least to v2.4. Anyone know if they have plans for such an archive? I will maintain the archive I have for another year at a minimum. If I decide to close that server, I will let you guys know in advance so that it can be maintained by someone else. I use the site for testing purposes. The MC downloads do not take up that much space, so I do not have any reason to close it. I have a regular amount of downloads for these files so it seems that it is useful. I am glad to be a part of this at this level. Best regards, Mark Talluto http://www.canelasoftware.com ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
A couple of points on the license-type debate: 1) We don't really care what license you use: anything from public domain (least restrictive) to Artistic License (what PERL uses) to GPL (most restrictive) would be fine. 2) A concern with using GPL is that anything moved into your application with the Resource Mover results in some of the virus-like aspects of GPL kicking it (i.e., you'd be required to release a version of your app without those stacks so the end-user could replace them). This makes LGPL a better bet, if something even this restrictive is desired. Regards, Scott ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
Richard Gaskin wrote:
Monte Goulding wrote:
I don't think LGPL is really inteded for this kind of thing. It's more for
libraries that can be included in commercial apps without breaking the
license or making the commercial app open source.
The difference is that with LGPL you have no problem distributing the
open source aspects of the code along side ('liniked') closed components
- in this case the closed components are the engine and RunRevs IDE.
You are right that the language of the licence uses the term 'library'
that is linked to rather than engine - but this AFAIK comes to the same
thing (they are thinking of C / C++) but any closed source block of code
that the open source code 'links to' is covered..
Personally I'd suggest Scott and RunRev choose a licensing scheme that
allows them to incorporate anything in MC into Rev. They may aswell get
something out of their generosity.
Yes. If you get real sophisticated on this issue they should look at
duel licencing and or you can finesse the GPL using a clause like:
In addition, as a special exception, name of copyright
holder gives permission to link the code of this program with
the FOO library (or with modified versions of FOO that use the
same license as FOO), and distribute linked combinations including
the two. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all
respects for all of the code used other than FOO. If you modify
this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the
file, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to
do so, delete this exception statement from your version.
Where FOO would be RunRev engine and IDE - easier to use LGPL though.
This sort of thing should be done with help from FSF people. The simple
story is to use the LGPL if you may wish to distribute the open source
code with 'linked' libraries (read IDE or engine here) which is not GPL'd.
There is a reason to get a GPL licence if you can - as LGPL si not so
appealing to the open source folk out there - so if Scott has sought
legal advice on this and GPL is OK for the MC IDE (to be distributed
with the RunRev engine) and any code libraries (such as libUrl) - then
great!
The work i put in on this front came back with a big fat no - re-reading
the licences and documents again - just confirmed this. GPL will not
allow the MC IDE to be distributed with the RunRev engine (or any other
closed source code such as an external). LGPL will.
LGPL also allows you to move to GPL providing certain conditions are met
- you can't go the other way (ie towards decreasing freedom). So my
recommendation is start LGPL and move to GPL later as and when required
/ possible.
___
metacard mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
David Bovill wrote: The simple story is to use the LGPL if you may wish to distribute the open source code with 'linked' libraries (read IDE or engine here) which is not GPL'd. Hmmm I had never considered including the Rev engine with the MC IDE distribution. It would be convenient, given the dissection required for OS X, but in my mind it keeps everything clean and simple to distribute only the IDE. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation Developer of WebMerge: Publish any database on any Web site ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com Tel: 323-225-3717 AIM: FourthWorldInc ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
Richard Gaskin wrote: David Bovill wrote: The simple story is to use the LGPL if you may wish to distribute the open source code with 'linked' libraries (read IDE or engine here) which is not GPL'd. Hmmm I had never considered including the Rev engine with the MC IDE distribution. It would be convenient, given the dissection required for OS X, but in my mind it keeps everything clean and simple to distribute only the IDE. It's more serious than that: if 'you' can't distribute the the MC IDE alongside the engine - then no-one can! Not on a CDROM or anything. The license preserves all rights and passes them down the chain intact - for better of for worse. ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
