From: Gregory Brown Date: 2006-04-06T02:03:34+09:00 Subject: Re: GPL v3 and Ruby License. I really didn't want to start a license flame war. I've responded below, but please keep in mind that my personal beliefs and my pragmatic beliefs are somewhat disjointed, and that for the community's sake, I'd always side with my pragmatic feelings. Meaning... when GPLv3 comes out, do we. a) Resist it by removing any "any later version" clauses from our license agreements which use the license of ruby b) Embrace it and re-release code using GPLv3 and Matz's terms, but make sure the FSF hears the voice of our community beforehand. c) Can it entirely and favor an established license such as the BSD license. d) Draft up our own license, possibly with cartoon foxes. On 4/5/06, Austin Ziegler wrote: > On 4/5/06, Gregory Brown wrote: > > On 4/5/06, Austin Ziegler wrote: > >> On 4/4/06, Gregory Brown wrote: >> > > 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 both > ways: if the FSF were to implement something that no one else wants, no > one would have to adopt it. but the tricky thing is, someone can redistribute your code under GPLv3 even if you didn't want it to be. So as long as the "any later version" thing is still in your agreement, those releases are all game for 'upgrade'. That's scary to me. If I want to re-release my code under a later version, I'll do so. At the same time, I imagine it's something that's meant to protect the code unless there is a major flaw and redistribution needs to be done on say, an abandoned project. Who knows. > > 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 my > mind on this. Does any amount of rationalization change your mind on ANYTHING austin? ;) Seriously though, the DRM stuff... i don't know. Maybe they had good propaganda, maybe they had a good point. I'm sold. People can always use GPLv2 to avoid it, if they need or want to. There is a strong vendetta against it in the FSF, and right or wrong, they seem pretty damn consistent on their views. > >> 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 any > change submitted solely under the GNU GPL licence, and that sort of nips > the purpose of copyleft in the bud. I am not so much concerned about the language itself. I'm concerned about the fact that a lot of libraries use the License of Ruby. (Including all of mine). I don't accept solely GPLed code myself for changes to Ruport, so I guess I am a hypocrite to some extent. However... I *am* writing reporting applications using Ruport that are under the GPL only, so I like knowing that it forms a nice copylefted bundle when I send it out to clients. I could use some sort of proprietary license if I wanted, seeing as ruby's terms would permit this, but I tend to go the other way. Of course, most of this has been for small stuff that no one would give a damn about anyway, so maybe i'm just being fussy. > At that, the disjunctive licence exists because (a) not everyone is > comfortable with the conditions expressed by Ruby's non-GPL terms > (either because they don't feel that it is a licence or that it clearly > states the limits of liability, etc.) or (b) it isn't clear that they > are GPL-compatible. > > So, switching Ruby to an MIT-style licence will solve both (a) and (b). I would not complain loudly if I saw an MIT or BSD license used for Ruby. I would just quietly sigh, as it would mean I could no longer use 'the license of ruby' for my code, and would probably go with GPLv3 alongside something else. Which goes back to sucking. This would probably make most people happy, of course. If it really happens, cool. If not, my original question comes back. Do we lock down to GPLv2, or get ready for GPLv3, or what? > There are some people who, IMO foolishly[1], think that copyleft protects > better than non-copyleft, but an MIT-style licence will ensure that a > given version of the Ruby source is still available and licensable. I do not think copyleft protects better than non-copyleft. I think it's stronger and it's in line with a personal ethical standpoint of mine. However, as you can see, I do not use the GPL on it's own for my ruby projects, mainly because I want to respect those who do not like the idea. Stronger is not necessarily better, of course. Stronger also can be seen as 'more restrictive' by some. However, I do believe that copyleft is not coercion because you cannot coerce someone through licensing terms. I am mostly in favor of weak copyleft, in most pragmatic applications of licenses. Protect your source, ensure it will remain free software, ensure the license can't be buried under a proprietary license, etc. As far as linking and integrating with non-free software... i'd like to be an idealist and say it's evil... but of course, I wouldn't have a job if that were the case ;) > > 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 the > worst possible licence, worse even than the GPL itself (because the GPL > is at least semi-honest about how it's forcing your source open). The > LGPL could cause problems for extension writers who do not wish to > release their source or object code. I was not suggesting using the LGPL. I hate it just as much as everyone. (including the FSF). I was suggesting a sort of weak-copyleft, which does not restrict non-free linking, but protects the freedom of the source itself. I am not sure what that means exactly. Maybe that you cannot modify the code and then release it lumped under a new license. That would be enough to make me happy.