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 22 Mar 2010 10:52 Ralph writes: > I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic > means of ensuring maximal adoption. You assume that everyone has maximum adoption as their primary goal. -- John Hasler jhasler(a)newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
From: David Kastrup on 22 Mar 2010 11:03 Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> writes: > 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? > > 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. That's perfectly fine since what makes the source code unpopular with the commercial developers also stops them from contributing back. So there is no loss. > 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). It does not get you "anything additional", but it gets you something _less_: a proprietary product that uses your own code to draw your user base away from you. > 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. The real world tends to disagree by example. Yes, I'd prefer a world in which Richard Stallman was pretty much wrong about everything, too. But one has to make the best from what one actually got. -- David Kastrup
From: RG on 22 Mar 2010 12:51 In article <878w9k1k8l.fsf(a)thumper.dhh.gt.org>, John Hasler <jhasler(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > Ralph writes: > > I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic > > means of ensuring maximal adoption. > > You assume that everyone has maximum adoption as their primary goal. Indeed, if maximal adoption were the goal the best way to achieve that would be to simply renounce the copyright and release the code into the public domain. rg
From: RG on 22 Mar 2010 13:03 In article <ho7v0o$rfv$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > 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. That's a much better way of putting it than your original formulation. > In short, I don't think GPL licensing gets you anything additional in > terms of getting code open sourced. .... > I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic > means of ensuring maximal adoption. Here is where you are imposing your choices on others. Not everyone shares this quality metric of yours. Some people have goals other than insuring maximal adoption, like, oh, I don't know, making money for example. Such people might want to use the copyright laws not to force others to create open-source software but to create artificial scarcity in order to drive up prices. One can argue whether or not this strategy will be effective. One can argue (as Stallman does) that one ought not choose this quality metric for moral or political reasons. But neither the quality metric nor the strategy are unreasonable a priori. rg
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 22 Mar 2010 15:35
On 2010-03-22 10:52:58 -0400, John Hasler said: > You assume that everyone has maximum adoption as their primary goal. I assume that the author's goal is maximizing the amount of open source - and in fact, it is Pascal's stated goal - that others who use his library will open their source code for him to see and use - a perfectly reasonable desire. I just don't think anyone whose source is closed is going to open that source code simply to use a library - if they are constrained not to open their source, they simply won't use GPL libraries. In order to accomplish this primary goal - greater amounts of open source - you need users and contributors. Possibly counterintuitively, the goal of maximizing open source is actually better accomplished by *not* choosing the GPL. The GPL drives potential users away, and potential users are potential contributors, bug fixers, etc. Instead, these potential users will become users of some other library which is LGPL, or BSD, etc. licensed, and they will become open source contributors to those other libraries, not to the GPL licensed project. Again, recognition of this dynamic is what drove the creation of the Library GPL (now the Lesser GPL) in the first place. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro |