[clfswm-devel] CLFSWM licence change?

[madnificent]

Hello Stayvoid,


On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Stayvoid <stayvoid at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Aad, you was misinformed about GPLv3. You've objected to problems that
> don't really exist. GPL defends freedom for all users, and GPLv3 does
> the job better.
>
> GPLv2
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLv2
>
> GPLv3
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GNUGPL
>
> AGPLv3
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#AGPLv3.0
>
> LGPL
> www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#LGPL
>
> Clear BSD
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#clearbsd
> "Because of this, we encourage you to be careful about using software
> under this license; you should first consider whether the licensor
> might want to sue you for patent infringement."

No one suggested Clear BSD so far.

> Modified BSD
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ModifiedBSD

This is what we call 'the' BSD license so far, or at least what I've
called that.  It's the three clause BSD license (that's "you need to
keep my name in here, have fun with the code").

> FreeBSD
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#FreeBSD

No one talked about this.

> X11 License
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#X11License

I don't know the inner details of the X11 license, they claim it's
similar to MIT, I haven't checked.  It seems more complex than need
be.

> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhatDoesCompatMean
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.en.html
>
> FAQ:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html

Sorry, I must be missing the point here.  I don't see where I'm wrong
here.  It would be nice if we could refer to non-biased documentation,
or just documentation for that matter.  Almost none of these links
contain thorough interpreted information about the licenses.  I don't
immediately see anything wrong with what I said here.  The site
contains four sentences of documentation for each license and then
links to the license text itself.  I must be missing something here.
You've also forgotten to include the Expat (that's what common people
call MIT) license [1].  Of which, for the record, they don't really
say anything bad.

>> On the other side, I like the BSD/MIT licence because they're more
>> simple and gives all freedoms to the developer. The 'do what you want
>> with the code but keep my author name' is appealing.
> Philippe, the simplicity of those licenses is a bad thing. Those don't
> protect people from some legal tricks:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.en.html

Simplicity is rarely a bad thing.  I see no legal tricks which can be
pulled on me if I use or publish MIT code.  The GPLv3 is in fact the
one trying to pull legal tricks on companies which have distributed
software under the GPLv2 or later.

> Please stick with the GNU GPL 3 (or any later version).
>
> I've also talked with rms via email. If you have any concerns about
> the GPLv3 you can talk with him.


Best regards,

Aad Versteden


[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Expat

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