Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
The FSF doesn't endorse Gentoo?
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
steveL
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 4996
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1clue wrote:
While there's much to agree with on what you're saying, and I keep trying to expand on the points, you still keep missing what I say.
You're right, I did not take in much of the discussion earlier, and I must apologise for that.
Pressures of real-life.
Quote:
IMO we chewed all the flavor out of this discussion 3 or 4 pages back. Let's just drop it.
Fair enough; I did try to read back again, but all I found was pages of argumentation with people using loaded terms like "cancerous" and "toxic", as if it were given that they apply.

Sorry again for not reading properly.

I must stipulate however, that I still have heard nothing that is a problem with the GPL, specifically. There is a technical discussion about linkage, which is far more interesting, being hinted at here, mind.

Yet it is not a problem with the GPL, nor any other license; nor could any license ever correct the issue, IMO.

Anyhow, have a good one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2266

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

steveL,

There is no problem with the GPL. There is a problem with people who carelessly link GPL code to closed-source code. I merely pointed out some of those issues and how such linkage may not be in the control of the people who wrote the closed-source code to begin with.

I also pointed out my personal dislike of Richard Stallman and his attitudes toward software. That's not a direct slam on RMS or the GPL. I hold similar attitudes toward Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. The four have always had what I consider to be extremist views on software licensing. Edit: I hold those similar attitudes for the same reasons: They each feel that all software should be licensed the way THEY think it should be licensed.

When linking to any library outside of your control, you need to pay attention to the licenses involved just so you understand what's going on. If you know the license then you pretty much know when you're treading close to the edge of legality.

Really, really, really, I think we chewed the flavor out of this discussion. I still want to drop it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yamakuzure
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 2115
Location: Bardowick, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Real FOSS, with 'F' really meaning 'free', uses the unlicense or the WTFPL. ;-)
Quote:
" How many precious hours of your life have you spent deliberating how to license your software or worrying about licensing compatibility with other software?"

_________________
elogind
CygwinOnSteroids
"A conservative is a man who is too cowardly to fight and too fat to run."
-- Elbert Hubbard
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17163

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1clue wrote:
There is no problem with the GPL. There is a problem with people who carelessly link GPL code to closed-source code.


1clue wrote:
When linking to any library outside of your control, you need to pay attention to the licenses involved just so you understand what's going on. If you know the license then you pretty much know when you're treading close to the edge of legality.
This legal quagmire is the problem some people have with the GPL.
_________________
The whole system has to go. The modern criminal justice system is incompatible with Neuroscience. --Sapolsky
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ant P.
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 4982

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yamakuzure wrote:
Real FOSS, with 'F' really meaning 'free', uses the unlicense or the WTFPL. ;-)
Quote:
" How many precious hours of your life have you spent deliberating how to license your software or worrying about licensing compatibility with other software?"

I'm starting to lean towards copyleft-next as a default license for anything new I do. It does most of what AGPL3 does and neatly subverts infinite copyright term extensions, and unlike the GPL it's short enough to read and understand in full without wanting to claw my eyes out.
_________________
*.ebuild // /etc/service/*
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 4996
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1clue wrote:
There is no problem with the GPL. There is a problem with people who carelessly link GPL code to closed-source code.
..
When linking to any library outside of your control, you need to pay attention to the licenses involved just so you understand what's going on. If you know the license then you pretty much know when you're treading close to the edge of legality.
pjp wrote:
This legal quagmire is the problem some people have with the GPL.
IDK how you can say that with a straight face.
You try "accidentally" linking to proprietary libraries, and see how much harder and just how much faster you get sued.

Point being, as 1clue said, and expounded above, it is not an issue to do with the license at hand.
All of them have terms under which you can link, and if you do not follow them, then you cannot.

Trying to make out that the technical linkage issue is down to any license at all, is beyond disingenuous, imo.
It reads like delusion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 4996
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1clue wrote:
Really, really, really, I think we chewed the flavor out of this discussion. I still want to drop it.
I hear you; I just popped back in to say, wrt the interesting technical discussion, that I highly recommend you /join ##workingset on IRC: chat.freenode.org or .net
It might be ##working-set but I don't think so.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17163

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

steveL wrote:
IDK how you can say that with a straight face.
steveL wrote:
It reads like delusion.
I respond reciprocally.

I am not a lawyer. I don't understand the legal navigation required to maintain compliance with the license. I'm not interested in hiring a lawyer to do so, and I'm not interested in being sued and required to spend money to do so. The GPL-2 contains 2968 words, GPL-3 contains 5644. Never mind all of the exceptions (see $PORTDIR/licenses).

That is exactly "an an issue to do with the license at hand."

When the license is reduced to your oversimplification, I'll reconsider it.
_________________
The whole system has to go. The modern criminal justice system is incompatible with Neuroscience. --Sapolsky
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2266

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@steveL,

Looking back on some of our argument, I find what I wrote confusing even though I know the point I was trying to make. I don't expect anyone else to understand what I wrote or even its underlying idea, based on the hastily worded rants on the previous pages of this thread.

That's the problem when the discussion gets too intense. We word things in an awkward way and then others misunderstand what we were talking about.

In the end I find that I wasted a whole lot of time trying and failing to explain a hypothetical situation. Since it's hypothetical I really doesn't matter to anyone.

When you're typing fast enough the keys start to get hot, you need to step back and spend time with the kids. Advice to myself, and maybe others will find it helpful too.

Peace.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 4996
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
When the license is reduced to your oversimplification, I'll reconsider it.
Words you really need to reflect upon.
Read the context for your post, that I picked you up on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 4996
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1clue wrote:
When you're typing fast enough the keys start to get hot, you need to step back and spend time with the kids. Advice to myself, and maybe others will find it helpful too.
Indeed, there are far more important things in life than "somebody on the internet is wrong!" ;-)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17163

PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

steveL wrote:
pjp wrote:
When the license is reduced to your oversimplification, I'll reconsider it.
Words you really need to reflect upon.
Read the context for your post, that I picked you up on.
I'm unable to parse that.
_________________
The whole system has to go. The modern criminal justice system is incompatible with Neuroscience. --Sapolsky
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dominique_71
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 1600
Location: Switzerland (Romandie)

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yamakuzure wrote:
Real FOSS, with 'F' really meaning 'free', uses the unlicense or the WTFPL. ;-)
Quote:
" How many precious hours of your life have you spent deliberating how to license your software or worrying about licensing compatibility with other software?"


What about peoples making money with free software? They benefit from the work of the free software community, and the less they can do is to contribute back to the community. It is why I want to know when they use my code to make money. The only way I can know it is with a license that make compulsory for them to talk with the developers. And these 2 licenses don't address that issue.
_________________
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading that text: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yamakuzure
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 2115
Location: Bardowick, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dominique_71 wrote:
Yamakuzure wrote:
Real FOSS, with 'F' really meaning 'free', uses the unlicense or the WTFPL. ;-)
Quote:
" How many precious hours of your life have you spent deliberating how to license your software or worrying about licensing compatibility with other software?"


What about peoples making money with free software? They benefit from the work of the free software community, and the less they can do is to contribute back to the community. It is why I want to know when they use my code to make money. The only way I can know it is with a license that make compulsory for them to talk with the developers. And these 2 licenses don't address that issue.
Compile your code into a static library, linked into my binaries, you will never know. No matter what license.

And even if you'd LGPL'd your code and I add it, including that license, as a shared library, so every customer can see that I am using your library. How will you know? I won't be forced to inform you.

If you provide something for free, someone else can make money with it. It all depends on what it is exactly whether you have a chance to detect a license breach (if your software is GPL'd) or not. There are too many possibilities of combining what on what to come to a generally valid conclusion.

And what means "Make Money" in the first place? A software used in the project work of my former employer statically links in GPL'd code. The software is internally used only and not distributed. So the company is a) making money by using it in their projects, but b) not selling closed source software, because c) the software is completely open source, but not published.
What now?
_________________
elogind
CygwinOnSteroids
"A conservative is a man who is too cowardly to fight and too fat to run."
-- Elbert Hubbard
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 4996
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

steveL wrote:
pjp wrote:
When the license is reduced to your oversimplification, I'll reconsider it.
Words you really need to reflect upon.
Read the context for your post, that I picked you up on.
pjp wrote:
I'm unable to parse that.
Good Lord, really?
You have my sympathy.

Perhaps it's all that time in OTW, pickling your brain. ;p
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 5629
Location: Room 101

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yamakuzure wrote:
What now?

call 1-800-$$$litigate$$$ ... our lawyers get paid whether your case is frivolous or not, 100% guaranteed ;)

@Dominique_71 ... as the saying goes "follow the money", the GPL isn't about preventing others from extracting surplus value from your labour, it's not even about "freedom" ... because if you're making money, and so have money to spend, you can control most of what might effect your revenue stream.

To modify a statement by William Randolph Hearst re freedom of the press: if you want software freedom then buy your own distribution ;)

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2266

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dominique_71 wrote:
Yamakuzure wrote:
Real FOSS, with 'F' really meaning 'free', uses the unlicense or the WTFPL. ;-)
Quote:
" How many precious hours of your life have you spent deliberating how to license your software or worrying about licensing compatibility with other software?"


What about peoples making money with free software? They benefit from the work of the free software community, and the less they can do is to contribute back to the community. It is why I want to know when they use my code to make money. The only way I can know it is with a license that make compulsory for them to talk with the developers. And these 2 licenses don't address that issue.


The GPL does not prevent someone from making money with GPL code. Far from it, most of that code was developed with revenue in mind. The GPL exists to ensure that code which was intended to be free remains free. Free to use and modify, not glommed into a commercial closed-source product.

There is a ton of GPL code out there which has features that would likely only be used in commercial situations.

With GPL code you can make money, but you can't sell the code or falsely claim it as your own.
_________________
You can't fix yourself by breaking someone else.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hu
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12238

PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1clue wrote:
With GPL code you can make money, but you can't sell the code or falsely claim it as your own.
As I understand it, you can charge for the act of distribution, with certain limitations. Distributing the binary can even be done at a profit[1] - but you cannot ensure that recipients don't turn around and redistribute the binary for free, which would cut into your revenue.

[1] The requirement to redistribute the source on request for no more than the cost of performing such distribution effectively prohibits profiting off distributing the source separately, but there's nothing that prevents you from selling the binary (and optionally bundling the source with it, for the convenience of yourself and your recipients) at a profit. Red Hat once made good money selling CDs containing ready-to-install Linux, which included plenty of GPLv2 code. People bought those CDs because it was worth it not to spend the time downloading the components and creating the CD by hand.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 4996
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
as the saying goes "follow the money", the GPL isn't about preventing others from extracting surplus value from your labour,
Indeed not; if anything it pretty much guarantees that you will not get paid as the programmer and author, nor as a pure software house (unless you can convince other businesses to pay for exceptions.) Point being, it takes away the main revenue stream of being able to charge others for the right to distribute, or copyright in effect.
Quote:
it's not even about "freedom" ... because if you're making money, and so have money to spend, you can control most of what might effect your revenue stream.
Hmm, I'd disagree in the sense that it is about protecting end-user freedoms (or rights, if you will.)

I'd agree that in effect it hands all power over to commercial distributors, rather than software houses -- never mind the individual back-room coder.
Quote:
To modify a statement by William Randolph Hearst re freedom of the press: if you want software freedom then buy your own distribution ;)
Lul, can't argue with that.

Or: use gentoo, since it will always be from-src, which means you will always have ultimate control, if you need to take it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 4996
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hu wrote:
Red Hat once made good money selling CDs containing ready-to-install Linux, which included plenty of GPLv2 code. People bought those CDs because it was worth it not to spend the time downloading the components and creating the CD by hand.
Indeed.
If we look at the situation nowadays, however, there really is no need for the middle-men.

Practically speaking, all code is developed and distributed over the Internet; even where coverage is patchy like in most of Africa, wireless and satellite technology is used instead of cabling.

Unless someone is seriously suggesting that all those millions of devices in Africa were installed and upgraded via CD or USB stick, I think we can move to the next century, where the commercial distributions are only acting in their own interests, and users are seen as a commodity; no longer the customer to woo, but the mope to package on and sell as a squit of data. If not by the distros, then by their "enterprise" customers.

So commercial distros are in the position of pimps, basically, and we're the unfortunate victims of abuse: to be lied at, whore out and rob; and then blamed for the situation.

Sorry if that metaphor is a bit too "colourful"; it certainly seems apt.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hu
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12238

PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree, paid intermediaries as distributors are unnecessary in almost all cases now. There will probably always be some niche uses for them, but generally, they are not needed in that role. However, one place where a paid intermediary can still try to offer value is in an integration/testing role. "We warrant that this particular combination of packages at these versions has been tested to achieve popular goals #1-#N. Our installer will put everything together and guide you through installing a production system that complies with local regulations." "We warrant that these packages were tested to verify immunity to popular attacks #1-#N." etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 4996
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hu: indeed, and that level of assurance is what sells support contracts, which are the golden-egg.

However, if we look at the "history", the real aim is for groups of users to get together and support each other, in collaboration; that in fact is where all the distributions came from, and will always be where they draw their workers from.

That is why they've spent so many years (since before RedHat got bought out) conditioning the userbase, both to accept edicts from "on high" as if they were Law, and to be "grateful" for "all the stuff we're giving you for FREE!".

Poeterring is the most brazen exponent of this, but he's very much the tip of an iceberg.

Note that "all this stuff" we're getting "for free" is in fact the end-product of decades of community collaboration.

It was never free: it cost years of sweat, labour and self-sacrifice on the part of thousands of quiet, dedicated sysadmins and programmers, who worked in "Data Processing" when it was boring and no-one else gave a damn about us, or the work.

So no, you can't sell it back to us. It's already ours.

As for warranting that stuff works, we can do that ourselves, thanks. We've been doing it for decades already, remember? That's why you even have an Internet to flood with propaganda.

Ultimately, it costs us much less to work with each other, pro bono, than to put up with (and pay for) this crap.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ant P.
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 4982

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ant P. wrote:
Yamakuzure wrote:
Real FOSS, with 'F' really meaning 'free', uses the unlicense or the WTFPL. ;-)
Quote:
" How many precious hours of your life have you spent deliberating how to license your software or worrying about licensing compatibility with other software?"

I'm starting to lean towards copyleft-next as a default license for anything new I do. It does most of what AGPL3 does and neatly subverts infinite copyright term extensions, and unlike the GPL it's short enough to read and understand in full without wanting to claw my eyes out.

Funny thing I've just discovered: crda has used copyleft-next for five years. So everyone with a full wifi stack is using non-FSF-approved copyleft.

Also Gentoo, naturally, specifies the wrong license for it. I wonder how much of portage is legally misleading people like that... (wouldn't be the first time)
_________________
*.ebuild // /etc/service/*
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 4996
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ant P. wrote:
I'm starting to lean towards copyleft-next as a default license for anything new I do. It does most of what AGPL3 does and neatly subverts infinite copyright term extensions, and unlike the GPL it's short enough to read and understand in full without wanting to claw my eyes out...
Funny thing I've just discovered: crda has used copyleft-next for five years. So everyone with a full wifi stack is using non-FSF-approved copyleft.
Damn, paragraph 7 is a non-starter.
Talk about taking literally every income-stream away from authors, and giving everything over to the distros (who've done such a sterling job of stewardship. /s)

As for paragraph 8..
Quote:
Also Gentoo, naturally, specifies the wrong license for it. I wonder how much of portage is legally misleading people like that... (wouldn't be the first time)
I imagine that would come under paragraph 3.
Makes one wonder how the kernel folks feel about their work not being under GPL2 any more.

But yeah, paragraphs 7 and 8 are a real issue, and 3 seems like a load of wishful thinking.

Presumably he got the permission of the other copyright holders to relicense their work.. I just don't see why anyone would be foolish enough to agree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ant P.
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 4982

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, now you mention it, those parts seem a bit strong. They read like reactions to mickey mouse laws and Oracle but it seems like they'd cause medium-sized projects friction too.
_________________
*.ebuild // /etc/service/*
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 8 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum