From: Gregory Brown Date: 2006-04-06T03:27:26+09:00 Subject: Re: GPL v3 and Ruby License. On 4/5/06, Austin Ziegler wrote: > On 4/5/06, Gregory Brown wrote: > > 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 no > indication in Stallman's past that he'll actually listen to anyone, is a > non-starter. (d) is problematic. (d) was mostly a joke. Except for the part about the cartoon foxes. I actually prefer a, unless somehow we could get a large community effort on b. though 'doing nothing at all' sounds like a bad idea. the e) option proposed of keeping everything as is but not accepting anything that is v3 or later is the most compromising, though it keeps the confusion factor high. I want the confusion factor lower, copylefted or not. ;) > > On 4/5/06, Austin Ziegler wrote: > >> On 4/5/06, Gregory Brown wrote: > >>> On 4/5/06, Austin Ziegler wrote: > > 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 GPLv3 > or any later if my release is GPLv2. At least, that's how *I* understand > it. It's more what restrictions you as a user choose to be stuck under. I interpret it differently. I see them being able to release it under GPLv3, and then being able to slap on v3 or later, v3 only, or whatever they want. If I am wrong, then I am more comfortable with this, if I am right, then I am scared. Maybe I should submit this question to rms or someone at the FSF? > > 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've > overstepped the bounds of the FSF with it. I don't want a damned EULA. The DRM stuff is an explicit moral standpoint. (for better or for worse). But anyone who thinks the GPL isn't more about software ethics and politics than it is about distribution and modification rights probably hasn't read the license. So... I understand your standpoint, you don't want someone elses ethics governing your code. I respect that. However, for those who believe in it, it does provide some strong language to help protect their beliefs. The question is, in this community, what serves us best? It would seem as if we prefer the simple, unencumbered route, we're business friendly in general, and the trend goes towards BSD/MIT. I'd honestly rather see the license become BSD or MIT and have an easier explaination for most libraries then explain this quagmire. Of course, my code will probably always be some weird mish-mosh including the GPL explicitly some how, for personal reasons that I never want to be GPL incompatible. Of course, I know that both BSD and MIT are GPL compatible. But what if, some day, they weren't. There goes my paranoia again. But that's my rationale for my personal decisions which hopefully explains a bit to others who haven't seen you and I discuss this before. But if Ruby was under BSD or MIT, nothing would stop me from offering a dual-license with BSD and the GPL or whatever I wanted. So I guess, it wouldn't hurt. > 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. > > [...] Hmm... I could say: Licensed disjunctively under the terms of Ruby and the GPL version foo. Right now, that would be redundant, but if Ruby was under BSD/MIT or any GPL compatible license, the effect would still be the same for my code. So I could live with that. What I can't live with is that matz's terms don't meet the Free Software Definition without the GPL. BSD/MIT/your free software license here, would. > > 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 this > discussion and you've shown yourself to be far more pragmatic than the > people to whom I refer. I am trying to find grounds along the fringe of the FSF's ideals in which I can say, "I strongly support this philosophy, but I'm not going to go to fisticuffs with those with slightly different viewpoints". It's hard. :) I want people to be able to avoid the 'extreme' stuff if they want (such as strong copyleft), and embrace it if they choose to, too. Saying all software must be copylefted or no software should be copylefted is equally exclusive. So, my decisions tend towards favoring choice. Right now in Ruby, we have it, it's just confusing as hell. As you and others have mentioned, maybe a single permissive GPL compatible free software license would be optimal. > > 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 extremely > difficult, it's coercion. A lot of Libertarians I know would disagree me > on this point, but they're also of the opinion that coercion can only > come from physical force. The verb "coerce", however, is defined as: "To > cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or > intellectual means". A licence can be coercion. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. I guess that puts me in the dissenting group on things like that. I believe that strong contracts that are freely entered into can be upheld and can be used to support various political and ethical goals. This is easy to criticize, so I'll take a shot at myself. "You mean, if you misread the GPL and in it somewhere there is a clause that all of your software are belong to santa clause, you'd honor it?" Begrudgingly, yes. It's the individuals responsibility to understand contracts they enter. If the ball has rolled in the GPLs court for a long time because people didn't know what they were getting into... oh well. One of the biggest problems in Free Software is not the FSF and their views, and not those such as yourself who understand and oppose various on various issues, but those who just slap the GPL on things because Linux is GPLed. That has caused a lot of murky water, and needs to be dealt with somehow. But that's a story for a different group, I suppose. > > 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 is > written, the MPL is incompatible with it. This will not be changing > under GPLv3. I imagine I must be the FSF's "most loving critic". I do love these guys and their ideas, but I don't love the vagueness and rhetoric they are prone to: '''This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the MPL for this reason.''' Austin, can you explain what the hell they are talking about, if you know? Otherwise, I'll go digging around with them and find out. > > 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 the > subtleties that Stallman put it in there that makes it a *worse* (more > restrictive) licence than the GPL itself. I just don't recommend it because the FSF retracted it's suggestion to use it. I mean... if the people who make a license say... oh, shit... don't use this, it doesn't do much for a vote of confidence. What are the specific clauses you find offensive though, out of curiosity? > > 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. I'm interested to know what makes it incompatible. But I might consider it if I ever deviate from the License of Ruby. I might go to MPL 1.1 + GPLv3 for my code in the future.