[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re[2]: [kDev] Which software license? A way forward...

On Mon Jun  7 12:46:08 2004, Daniel Harris wrote:
It would be nicer if you just pointed out where I was going wrong rather than just ignoring entirely what I'm saying.

Much of the rest of your email is concerned with you stating that you are ignoring our comments, not the other way around.

You "think" is not good enough to me. I need to "know" and see it *demonstrated* that you are in agreement. Stop talking *to* me and start building statements that say we the undersigned all agree. Re-read my previous emails.

I took Phillip's statement as directly primarily to me, actually, and in addition, to the list, not really to you as such.

I took the meaning of it as an invitation to build precisely that statement, specifically in answer to your request for us to do so.

Don't worry about protection from being sued.

Unless I state that as a requirement then how do I know that the license I chose will fulfil the said requirements? Unless I state that then I could just release the code as public domain or non-recursive license.

Phillip is not stating that it is not a requirement, simply one that has absolutely no bearing on license choice, because all possible licenses do contain as much protection from being sued as is reasonably possible.

A non-recursive open-source license also has this protection, as has been stated several times.

Before we choose licenses we need requirements for those licenses to demonstrate our clarity of thought. So, you *may* have clear reasons behind choosing these licenses but unless these are clearly stated (and I've proposed a way for us to do this *together* which you've ignored) I could just as well asked a 3 year old to chose from a random set of licenses represented as coloured bricks and could have got the same answer as yours. But I'd be just as clear why I got the result in both cases. See?

Daniel, we are both trying to help you here by offering you advice which is entirely free, and which takes thought, and therefore time, away from tasks which we are paid for. Therefore we're actually paying you for the priveledge of offering you advice. I should ask for my money back, really.

Comparing that advice to the random choices of a three year old is, frankly, insulting in the extreme. Berating us publically on a mailing list for not following some 'policy' you invented this morning is hardly a way to obtain useful advice, either.

For what it's worth, and I believe this has been stated before on this list, where Phillip or I state 'GPL', please take it to mean 'A recursive open source license which prevents lock-in by not allowing the program to be linked with one under a non-source license, or a license which adds restrictions.', if you prefer. 'BSD' is even simpler, we mean 'The Modified BSD license without an advertising clause, or any similar permissive open source license'.

We pick the GPL (and LGPL) here partly because of the recognition it has, and also partly because it is known to have been examined by copyright experts the world over, and has yet to be challenged in court as a result - it's a solid, well known license, and I doubt another license can be written which would have its legal weight.

We pick the BSD simply as the most well known permissive license - I think the MIT, X, and other licenses would be an equally good fit.

These are not random choices. We have stipulated our reasons behind them multiple times now. If you don't listen to what we are saying and comment on what we are saying... Oh, wait, you've already said that, haven't you.

Based on my previous emails what else can I say?...

Daniel, having known you for a number of years, I'm quite confident you'll think of something.