From: Austin Ziegler Date: 2006-04-06T02:41:17+09:00 Subject: Re: GPL v3 and Ruby License. On 4/5/06, Gregory Brown wrote:> 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. (a) or (c). The GPLv3, at least as it exists so far, and there's noindication in Stallman's past that he'll actually listen to anyone, is anon-starter. (d) is problematic. > 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'. Yes, sort of. They can't change the wording on the release to be GPLv3or any later if my release is GPLv2. At least, that's how *I* understandit. It's more what restrictions you as a user choose to be stuck under. >>> 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? ;) I know this is mostly a joke, but yes. I am, however, convinced that theDRM clause is a bad thing and has no business in any licence I'll touch. > 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. Consistent? Yes. Morally wrong on this one? I think so. They'veoverstepped the bounds of the FSF with it. I don't want a damned EULA. >>>> 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. Maybe. >> 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. If you changed the wording of that, you could: "Licensed under the same terms as Ruby". That is, as long as you're okay without the GPL. Which I am. [...] >> 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. Right. I'm not really trying to indict you here; we've had thisdiscussion and you've shown yourself to be far more pragmatic than thepeople to whom I refer. > 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. That's a common misconception. One *can* coerce through licensing terms.If the choice is "my way or the highway", where the highway is extremelydifficult, it's coercion. A lot of Libertarians I know would disagree meon this point, but they're also of the opinion that coercion can onlycome from physical force. The verb "coerce", however, is defined as: "Tocause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral orintellectual means". A licence can be coercion. > 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 ;) Something like the MPL. The problem is, with the way that the GPL iswritten, the MPL is incompatible with it. This will not be changingunder GPLv3. >>> 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). Mmmm. I used to recommend the LGPL. But I have also carefully read thesubtleties that Stallman put it in there that makes it a *worse* (morerestrictive) licence than the GPL itself. > 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. It means you prefer the MPL, by and large. -austin--Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca