Recommendation for a CL data structures library
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: [2nd CfP] 7th European Lisp Workshop at ECOOP'10, June 21/22
Next: §§§ 2010 Cheap wholesale ED Hardy Suit, Baby Suit, Lacoste Suit ect at www.rijing-trade.com <Paypal Payment>
From: John Hasler on 21 Mar 2010 15:29 Raffael Cavallaro writes: > They are not required to publish it. They are merely required to > distribute it along with the binaries. If you offer source to everyone > to whom you sell binaries you are done. > In practice this amounts to publication. Every customer would receive > the source; every customer has the right to make it public; it would > only take one customer excercising this right to make the source > publicly available. They might, but there are cases where they did not. The point is that _you_ are not required to publish anything. Offering source to everyone who receives binaries from you satisfies your GPL obligations. You can ignore requests for source from anyone else. Of course, if the possibility that someone might pass the software on worries you, the solution is simple: don't link to GPL works. -- John Hasler jhasler(a)newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 21 Mar 2010 21:43 On 2010-03-21 15:29:44 -0400, John Hasler said: > They might, but there are cases where they did not. One can't rely on this unlikely possibility, which becomes increasingly unlikely the more sales are made. > The point is that > _you_ are not required to publish anything. It hardly matters who does the publishing. The point is that the source still becomes publicly available. > Offering source to everyone > who receives binaries from you satisfies your GPL obligations. You can > ignore requests for source from anyone else. > > Of course, if the possibility that someone might pass the software on > worries you, the solution is simple: don't link to GPL works. Which is why many developers choose to avoid this possibility and use LGPL/LLGPL/BSD/MIT/Apache licensed libraries instead. And now we've come full circle. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 21 Mar 2010 22:14 Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> writes: > On 2010-03-21 15:29:44 -0400, John Hasler said: > >> Of course, if the possibility that someone might pass the software on >> worries you, the solution is simple: don't link to GPL works. > > > Which is why many developers choose to avoid this possibility and use > LGPL/LLGPL/BSD/MIT/Apache licensed libraries instead. And now we've > come full circle. Sure. And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me? -- __Pascal Bourguignon__
From: John Hasler on 21 Mar 2010 22:46 Pascal Bourguignon writes: > And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me? Explain. -- John Hasler jhasler(a)newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 22 Mar 2010 10:31
On 2010-03-21 22:14:30 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said: > Sure. > > And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me? Not only am I not imposing anything on you, I've already offered to pay you for a commercial license. So you can have your cake (GPL licensing) and eat it too (paid commercial licensing). My principal objection to the GPL is that its license requirements regarding opening source code make it very unpopular with many commercial developers, and therefore whenever possible, they choose non-GPL alternatives. In short, I don't think GPL licensing gets you anything additional in terms of getting code open sourced. Users who need to keep their source closed either won't use it, or will use in in a way that allows them not to open the source (e.g., Paul Graham's viaweb and their use of the GPL CLISP). Meanwhile, users of LLGPL or BSD, etc. licensed code frequently open source whatever they are able as contributions back to the relevant project. Giving users the choice of what they will and won't open source results in more users, and just as many open source contributions. More use means the library is more of a community standard, more contributors, more bug fixes, more extensions, more additions, etc. And non-GPL license authors can still sell support (e.g., priorty for bugfixes or priority for adding new features, etc. - The Clozure folks did this for their IDE, and Clozure is LLGPL licensed). I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic means of ensuring maximal adoption. Ironically, the FSF understood this dynamic which is why they created the Library GPL, now known as the Lesser GPL. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro |