[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: [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.
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
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
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.
Daniel, having known you for a number of years, I'm quite confident
you'll think of something.
Based on my previous emails what else can I say?...