Open source licensing being questioned by anti-copyrighttypes
in [Java Programming]
|
Prev: XWSSecurity and WebSphere
Next: Enum Idiom Question
From: Arne Vajhøj on 28 May 2010 20:31 On 27-05-2010 22:58, ClassCastException wrote: > In dealing with Java, OpenJDK, and Clojure stuff in recent months I'd > come to suspect that open source licensing is itself a source of trouble. > Notably, Clojure's license is incompatible with the GPL, under which > large chunks of other open source software is licensed. And so what? This means that you can not modify the Clojure compiler using GPL code. Very few libraries are GPL. LGPL and GPL with linking exception was invented for libraries. And it has no impact on people writing apps in Clojure. > So I decided to do a little reading on copyright in general. Why does it > even exist? The nominal purpose, it turns out, is to "promote the > progress of science and the useful arts" by providing a way for the > creators of any popular or important work to ensure remuneration, > basically. Which smells suspiciously like a grant of monopoly -- which, > barring the notion of "fair use", it basically is. If everybody could copy software exactly as they wanted then I am pretty sure that the software industry would be in a very poor shape. > Furthermore there are > a LOT of blogs out there expressing serious criticism of copyright, > pointing out that fair use is not in most cases a workable defense even > when it should be, and that copyright has been twisted away from its > original purpose by corporations seeking to extend and tighten their > control over lucrative media and software properties. Sounds like blogs from teenagers that wants to be able to download everything for free and have parents to pay the bills. > It thus seems that copyright was twisted away from its original purpose, > to which it might have been poorly suited to begin with, and open source > licenses try to twist it back toward that purpose. Not really. Open source use copyright the exact same way as closed source. The only way. Open source has different license terms than closed source, but that does not change the copyright as such. > Upshot: I think I'll use BSD-type licenses for now. They're compatible > with almost anything, license-wise, including the GPL and Clojure's > license, and have a decent level of respect in the open source world. I > don't think I can go far wrong if I use the two-clause BSD license on my > code. When you have copyright for the code, then you decide on the license. I think that you can generally divide in: - strong copyleft (GPL) - weak copyleft (LGPL etc.) - permissive (Apache, BSD etc.) Due to Apache's strong involvement in Java technologies, then I think there are more Java code under Apache than BSD license. Arne
From: David Lamb on 29 May 2010 14:48 On 29/05/2010 4:17 AM, ClassCastException wrote: > Copyright was born from the theory that letting authors of "writings and > discoveries" close off access and control the use of their work, e.g. to > set up a tollbooth, would promote progress. Well, that theory *used* to be true; Dickens apparently got no royalties from "pirated" US editions of his works. But that was a long time ago when the world was very different.
From: David Lamb on 29 May 2010 18:13 On 29/05/2010 5:54 PM, Stefan Ram wrote: > Also, once they have the > software, how do you make them pay you? The GPL already > entitles them to legally own it without any payment to you. Well, contract law would still apply. "I'll hand over this disk and you'll pay me" with suitable legalize boilerplate ought to mean they have to pay you. I suppose one could start an argument about the seller not having the money to sue.
From: Arne Vajhøj on 29 May 2010 21:47 On 29-05-2010 03:56, ClassCastException wrote: > On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:09:36 -0400, David Lamb wrote: >> Does this quote mean that, although one can legally sell modified code, >> there is little incentive for anyone to pay for it, since they can >> obtain, use, modify, and redistribute for free? > > Red Hat makes quite a bit of money selling copies of GPL'd software on > physical media. > > This might have something to do with the fact that Aquafina makes quite a > bit of money bottling and selling stuff that pretty much all of their > potential customers can get out of a faucet for free. Not a good comparison. When you buy RHEL from Redhat instead of downloading Centos, then you get support from Redhat. > It might also have something to do with the fact that the entertainment > industry is not, contrary to popular belief, losing revenues to piracy. > Declining sales of things like DVDs and recorded music have a complex web > of causes, in which the effects of online piracy are not reliably > different from zero according to the statistical studies. That "fact" is very disputed. > The moral of the story: the GPL absolutely is NOT incompatible with > profiting from selling software, NOT EVEN if you restrict your business > model to selling copies. Companies making monet on GPL usually do it by selling support or by dual license (GPL and commercial). The GPL license does not prohibit it, but the terms of GPL plus basic economics do that you need something other than selling copies to prosper. Arne
From: Arne Vajhøj on 29 May 2010 21:49
On 29-05-2010 17:54, Stefan Ram wrote: > Thomas Pornin<pornin(a)bolet.org> writes: >> So the GPL is, in practice (not in theory), incompatible with for-profit > > If you put a box in a shop with some software for $329, > people who think that it addresses their needs will buy it. > It might contain a sheet of paper with the GPL and directory > with the source code. Most consumers will not read either of > them. There are bought many goods in our world that one > also might get for free by some other means. The word will get around. Arne |