[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       berlin-design
Subject:    Re: [Fresco-devel] Re: Cross-platformability
From:       C Y <smustudent1 () yahoo ! com>
Date:       2002-11-24 3:38:03
[Download RAW message or body]


--- "M. Evans" <datafeed@SoftHome.net> wrote:

> Like I said -- many of these terms have not been decided in case law
> -- where it really matters.  Subclasses are very arguably a derived
> work, and thus require source to be divulged under LGPL.  I guarantee
> you that if one were litigating, one could pay expert software
> consultants to make this argument.

I still don't understand what modifications you think people would need
to make.  Windows GUI system isn't modified by anybody, and neither is
Apples, and both work just fine.  Can you propose a case where someone
would NEED to make changes they couldn't release without endangering
their product?
 
> You have the right to keep it *all* to yourself.  Open source is
> about attracting people to contribute.  The GPL attracts certain 
> folks, the LGPL attracts certain folks; and both of them also *drive 
> away* certain folks. Somewhere exists a happy medium that maximizes 
> the labor pool.  I happen to believe that it is not LGPL.

I think this is one of the root differences.  I obviously can't speak
for the project, but I suspect maximizing the labor pool isn't the
major goal.  Sure, more people are nice, but only if they want to work
on what   Fresco is working on, which is a free system.  Trading that
freedom for more developers isn't acceptable, period.

Also, I wouldn't say "keeping it all to yourself."  It's keeping it all
to those who develop free systems.  (Although I don't think that's
whats happening here.)
 
> fdrfo> But whoever demands me to use my code, may
> fdrfo> do so under the conditions *I* set.
> 
> This is ignoring my point -- you must calculate those conditions
> mindful of how they will affect who decides whether to use the
> code at all.

No.  Those conditions are calculated according to ideals of what the
authors want the system to become, which is not automatically the most
popular system out there.  I think that's a common misconception people
have about open systems.  If nobody except other open source people use
them or want to, the system is a success.  If more people use it it's a
bigger success, but that's just icing on the cake.  Commercial open
source companies like Redhat are out to expand as much as possible, but
open source itself is self sufficient.  I have no commercial software
on my system right now, and need none.  There are systems which require
vast amounts of work for very specific applications that will only be
developed by commercial companies, and that's fine.  But open source
doesn't need those applications to thrive.

> fdrfo> But anyways, lets not get dragged into a license war here.
> 
> I'm not in a war.  What I am saying is that more manpower is
> available under looser licensing.  I'm trying to add numbers to your
> side :-).

Ah, but numbers aren't the ultimate goal, remember.  A great, free
system is.

> fdrfo> I don't have
> fdrfo> any trouble asking for these modifications to remain free,
> too.
> 
> Which assumes that such changes will go straight into CVS -- not
> always the case.  If not, the business must manage its own source
> code distribution mechanism under LGPL terms.

Just dump the code onto a server.  How hard can that be?

> It also assumes that such changes are easily decoupled from the
> proprietary code that the business *must* keep private to survive.
> That is not always the case, though IDL interfaces may help a
> lot here.

It appears to always be the case in Windows.  What makes this
different?

> fdrfo> just stating that it is correct doesn't make it so.
> 
> But it says that mine is a considered position, not some unfounded
> psychological fear/confusion factor (as LGPL advocates often try to
> paint it).

There are some fundamentally different assumptions at work in the two
communities.  I think that causes some of the problems.

> This armchair psychology discounts (a) the explicit anti-commercial
> intent of GPL and (b) the fact that businessmen know how to think
> rationally and understand contracts.  It also discounts the fact that
> (c) businesses have made huge contributions to the open source world.

Not really.  GPL plays it's own game, and if commerical people want to
play along by the rules, great.  But only by the rules.  Businessmen
have different goals than open source, but open source doesn't care. 
Business doesn't dictate the rules.  They might suggest claraifications
which help developers know how to write for different purposes, but the
intent and spirit of the community remain.  Business goals are
secondary to the purpose.
 
> Businessmen are paid to manage risks.  It's not a question of
> confusion but of risk.  From a legal standpoint, the LGPL causes 
> certain risks when used in commercial code.  There is the risk that 
> modifications will be necessary; that "modifications" can be 
> interpreted in many ways at court; that an LGPL project will be 
> dropped by the open source world, leaving only the business to
support 
> it, but without code rights; the risk that the open-source project 
> will not accept changes, thus requiring the business to configure its

> own source distribution; and on and on.

That's a risk they decide to take - save effort by using open software
vs. the project no longer being maintained.  Whatever they choose is
fine.  No one is asking them to help - if they do so they are
volunteers.

> The wxWindows license is an example of how to short-circuit all these
> risks while not straying far from the LGPL.  The BSD license may
> be too loose, but nonetheless its success is quite remarkable and
> says to me that xGPL is not the necessity its advocates claim.  In 
> other words, open source can succeed quite handsomely under BSD, 
> despite all the xGPL talk about business stealing code, etc.

I would say *GPL has succeeded far more than BSD.  Look where the
energy and activity of the open source community is.  I don't think
this is an accident.

Also, I wouldn't say BSD code being included in things like Microsoft
software is a success.  Microsoft has done a world of hurt to the
computer market, crushing competition and producing very inferior
products.  I would say a license which provides code for helping create
such environments is a failure as an open source license.  Also,
remember code is distinct from languages and protocals.  Communication
standards should be universal, but code is something else again.

> My overall point is that it's better for an open source project to
> attract commercial developers and obtain *some* of their
> improvements, than to drive most of them away with stringent demands 
> and get *nothing* from them.

That depends on the goals of the project.  In Fresco's case, I'd say
it's better to remain free at all costs.  Faster is less important than
a) doing it right and b) having a fully free implimentation.

> OK I've spent enough time on the subject, and since war has been
> threatened, this will be my last note on the subject.  Thanks
> everyone for your consideration.

Sorry for replying to an off topic thread.  Twenty lashes with a wet
noodle for continuing this, but I wanted to voice my thoughts.

CY

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
Fresco-devel mailing list
Fresco-devel@fresco.org
http://lists.fresco.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/fresco-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]