[clfswm-devel] CLFSWM licence change?

[madnificent]

Hello Stayvoid,


On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:34 PM, Stayvoid <stayvoid at gmail.com> wrote:
>> "any future version" is a no-go for me.
>> Furthermore I'm not prepared to be held responsible over potential
>> violations of *future* versions of the GPL license, whatever they may
>> be.  Any future version is a clear no-go for me, from a contributor's
>> point of view.
> Future versions are for those people who want to distribute the copies.
> For example, there will be some new legal tricks in the future. So you
> have to provide people a chance to choose between the GNU GPL 3 or the
> advanced version.
> You can't get sued for that because you've chosen the GNU GPL 3.

Yes, the distributors can pick the new license.  The new license can
say something to which the authors of the code must adhere.  My
agreement between me and the distributors is the agreement which the
*distributor* picks.  Hence, I'm signing a contract of which I don't
know what's in it yet.  I try not to sign legal documents for which
the content isn't written yet.

>> I don't understand the legal writing, I understand their explanation.
> You should try to understand. Or you can ask a lawyer to help you.

I can, I must then pay him.  I'm providing code, free.  Furthermore
I'll be placing my trust in those that parse the license, hence
there's a big possibility for error, depending on how the court judges
interpret the rules.  Why would I possibly want to endanger myself in
this situation?

>> Proprietary software isn't the root of all evil.
> No, it's not, but there are a lot of things which depend on the
> software. Computers are everywhere nowadays.

The omnipresence of computers seems unrelated.

>> If it were, then you wouldn't be using a gmail address right now.
> It's a temporary email. I hope to use my own in the near future.
>
>> For a *lot* of things it makes more sense to share code, but sometimes, it doesn't.
> I don't think so. Could you provide an example?

It's obviously complex to state that it is impossible, but implausible
for sure.  Thing is: there rarely are examples in which both a closed
and an open source version exist simultaneously.  In my interpretation
keeping the source on your own servers is the equivalent of closed
source software.  It doesn't matter that you used any GPL code, if
you're not sharing the code of your web service, you're essentially as
closed as can be.  I'm sure you can agree on that.

Take just about any tech startup, many wouldn't succeed if they didn't
have their unique product to offer.  The key there is that they
provide a little benefit, to many people.  Whenever that happens, it
doesn't make sense to open source everything, you would only sell it
to one person, so you'd only be able to sell a little benefit (not
worth much) instead of many little benefits.  I myself am involved in
such a startup company.  It doesn't mean we don't try to share
wherever possible, but whatever we build that provides us our
competitive edge, is not shared.  We aim to build an affordable
Business Intelligence solution.

An example in which I'm not involved in is Wunderlist.  Another is
aerofs or the windsoc api.  The costs of building these things and
showcasing that it is a viable product, need to be payed back.  Later
open source solutions may arise.  As a user I'd prefer them all to be
open sourced.  But if I'd want them to be from the start, then they
wouldn't have been built in the first place.  Making these projects a
sensible business decision (in the real world, we need to pay for our
food) generally means that you kind of have to keep stuff for yourself
for a while.  The only big company that I followed which went open
source by the heart of it was Sun, and they kind of flunked.

>> Forcing people to be free isn't exactly making them free. In the same way an
>> exorcism doesn't really free people. Nor does freeing people from any
>> given religion. Freedom is having the choice. But in essence both
>> did free people from something we assumed they had to be freed of.
>> The GPL doesn't give freedom to users, it takes it away. :-)
> Do not sneer, please.
> The choice means that you have four essential freedoms. It's not a
> real freedom if you have to choose between the free software and the
> proprietary software, because the latter restricts you.

MIT is not proprietary, it does *not* restrict you.  Please.  It is
*not* pro GPL or pro proprietary software.

>> Furthermore I'm not prepared to be held responsible over potential
>> violations of *future* versions of the GPL license, whatever they may
>> be.  Any future version is a clear no-go for me, from a contributor's
>> point of view.
> You will not be responsible if you don't violate the license.
> Ask a lawyer if you aren't sure.
>
> It's very important. I hope you'll agree with me.

Yes it is.  And no I do not agree with you.

>
> Cheers.

Best regards,

Aad Versteden

>
> _______________________________________________
> clfswm-devel mailing list
> clfswm-devel at common-lisp.net
> http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clfswm-devel