From: Austin Ziegler Date: 2006-04-06T01:05:28+09:00 Subject: Re: GPL v3 and Ruby License. On 4/5/06, Gregory Brown wrote:> On 4/5/06, Austin Ziegler wrote:>> On 4/4/06, Gregory Brown wrote:>> [...] >>> Should the ruby community get active in commenting on GPLv3 in hopes>>> of making it possible to switch the ruby license to use it>>> (alongside the current, more permissive terms of course), or should>>> we be focusing on making a Ruby license that stands on it's own, or>>> should we just jump this hurdle down the line when we get to it?>> My personal recommendation would be to change Ruby such that it is>> locked to the GNU GPL v2. I personally will be moving to change those>> pieces of software that I have written and released under the GNU GPL>> so that they are locked to v2.> I was thinking about and getting paranoid about the "or any later> version" clause you see in most GPLed softwares terms. This was> proposed as a 'fix' by the FSF, but I see it as a back door. Yeah. It is, really. The only saving grace is that it's a back door bothways: if the FSF were to implement something that no one else wants, noone would have to adopt it. >> I see no benefit in participating in the GPL v3 system because>> Stallman isn't really interested in working with community; he has>> already made his decisions and the only question is how to word it so>> that it is made legal pretty much everywhere.> Yes, I complained that it seems like a lot happens behind closed doors> at the FSF and then they pop out with their decision and ask for> critique after the fact. After my discussion with Peter Brown, he> mentioned that they certainly had room to make some changes in the> process for the second draft, whether they do or not is yet to be> seen. Still, I think if a few of us knock at their door and let them> know what we're thinking, they might consider it a bit more seriously. >> I do not like most of what I have seen of the v3 draft and see it as>> one of the worst possible directions that could be taken.> What are your specific gripes? I was honestly ambivalent to slightly> annoyed about the DRM clauses until I heard the rationale at their> meeting, and I was strongly convinced that the new DRM protection is A> Good Thing. I completely disagree, and no amount of rationalization will change mymind on this. If they make it an *optional* section (e.g., GPLv3 withDRM clause) then I can see it happening. But they are once again tryingto make moral choices for me, and expecting me to agree with them. I frankly don't have an issue with the *idea* of DRM; Stallman obviouslydoes. (I have issues with the *implementations* of DRM, and with theoverreaching powers claimed through DRM, and with the nonsensicalapplication of DRM to many things, but not with the *idea* of DRM.) > Also, they are working on ensuring compatibility with the Apache> license, which sounds good too. The patent threat is supposedly going> to be softened too. Mmm. The patent threat is one of the few things that I like, inasmuch asit will be limited to retaliation (you try to do patent shit against meor anyone who uses this software, you lose the right to do anything withthis softare, too). > So what bad parts am I missing? Mostly the DRM. Both the DRM section and the patent section, however,make the GPLv3 into something more akin to a EULA than a source licence,which is what the GPLv2 is (although it's often mispresented to Windowsusers as a EULA, which is *not* the case). >> I would *personally* prefer to see Ruby relicensed under something>> like the MIT licence because I don't think that there's any merit to>> the disjunctive licence support for the GNU GPL.> That's a broad stroke. Some people would like to retain copyleft. Why? Seriously. I am reasonably certain that Matz would not accept anychange submitted solely under the GNU GPL licence, and that sort of nipsthe purpose of copyleft in the bud. At that, the disjunctive licence exists because (a) not everyone iscomfortable with the conditions expressed by Ruby's non-GPL terms(either because they don't feel that it is a licence or that it clearlystates the limits of liability, etc.) or (b) it isn't clear that theyare GPL-compatible. So, switching Ruby to an MIT-style licence will solve both (a) and (b).There are some people who, IMO foolishly[1], think that copyleft protectsbetter than non-copyleft, but an MIT-style licence will ensure that agiven version of the Ruby source is still available and licensable. > Placing it under the MIT license would prevent that. Which of course,> some would call a good thing, but it would make people like me sad.> Still, I do think that Ruby might benefit from a single license, maybe> with a weak copyleft such as that of the LGPL (something in that> spirit). Anything but the LGPL. Over time, I have come to believe that it is theworst possible licence, worse even than the GPL itself (because the GPLis at least semi-honest about how it's forcing your source open). TheLGPL could cause problems for extension writers who do not wish torelease their source or object code. -austin[1] Sorry, Greg, but I really do think that copyleft is a crock, and I think that Ruby doesn't benefit from the GPL in any way. I think that because there *are* licence zealots out there, Ruby would benefit from GPL compatibility, but should not be tainted in any way by the GPL if at all possible.--Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca