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: Raffael Cavallaro on 22 Mar 2010 15:40 On 2010-03-22 13:03:31 -0400, RG said: > >> 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. See my reply to John Hasler for why maximizing adoption is a means to maximizing openly available source code, Pascal's stated goal. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 22 Mar 2010 16:58 RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> writes: > 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. Indeed these are the questions. I will have to think more about it, and may be change the licence in the future (perhaps this year). I also would like to contribute some of my code to some common library and this would certainly require a change of license anyway. But I need more time to think about it and work on it. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__
From: John Hasler on 22 Mar 2010 16:51 Raffael Cavallaro writes: > Possibly counterintuitively, the goal of maximizing open source is > actually better accomplished by *not* choosing the GPL. I guess this is why Linux has been totally eclipsed by BSD. > 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. Most never become contributors at all. -- John Hasler jhasler(a)newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
From: Nicolas Neuss on 22 Mar 2010 18:00 David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> writes: > 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. This is quite understandable - I would not really like seeing Microsoft use my code. However, when I was in search for a license for code of mine -Femlisp, a PDE solver written in Common Lisp- I stood before the question which license to choose[*]. A commercial license did not make much sense, because the code was (and is) not yet commercially valuable. However, I wanted to retain at least some possibility of providing enhanced value (in the form of additional features) within a commercial setting. A GPL license would make this business model impossible for everyone - _including me_ as soon as other people would start contributing relevant portions of code under the GPL. Therefore, I decided in favor of the (modified) BSD license. Nicolas [*] More precisely, I asked my university for permission to use either GPL or BSD, and then had the choice.
From: David Kastrup on 22 Mar 2010 18:25
Nicolas Neuss <lastname(a)kit.edu> writes: > David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> writes: > >> 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. > > This is quite understandable - I would not really like seeing Microsoft > use my code. > > However, when I was in search for a license for code of mine -Femlisp, > a PDE solver written in Common Lisp- I stood before the question which > license to choose[*]. A commercial license did not make much sense, > because the code was (and is) not yet commercially valuable. However, > I wanted to retain at least some possibility of providing enhanced > value (in the form of additional features) within a commercial > setting. A GPL license would make this business model impossible for > everyone - _including me_ as soon as other people would start > contributing relevant portions of code under the GPL. > > Therefore, I decided in favor of the (modified) BSD license. That does not keep other people from contributing relevant portions of code under the GPL, if they so desire. -- David Kastrup |