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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Noatun: Licensing, and a new one
From:       Charles Samuels <charles () kde ! org>
Date:       2001-01-02 9:34:56
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tuesday 02 January 2001 01:13 am, Greg Turpin wrote:
> I don't mean to flame, but, here are some additional comments.
For all replies to this email, "I don't mean to flame" will be implied, to 
save a few bytes :)

>
> The Open Source world doesn't need another license.  We've got
> plenty already.
This brings back the point that if a person writes code, they have the right 
to license it in any way they wish.

>
> Also, the "don't claim you wrote this" rule - its just not nice.
Well, I don't mean to say I wrote this all, that's exactly why I needed to 
send this email, to get permissions from my coauthors to relicense Noatun.

> Depending on how much code you actually modified - this isn't
> appropriate.  What if you majorly change the code and make
> it better or account for various problems the author did not
> account for.
At that point, you are forced to abide by the original license, unless you 
can convince every previous author of that file that your new license is what 
it should be.

If your new file obviously bears no similarity, then do as you wish.

> It should be more like this:
> Have a standard "modified by" part of the license that you can
> add yourself to the top of the license.  This way, older authors
> are not counted out and the newer author is at the top of the
> list.
That's not the component of a license, that's a component of the copyright, 
which is implied in any copyright header.

>
> Anyways...licenses are a complicated thing.  Ideally everyone that
> is dedicated to the concepts of KDE or all free software should
> release under the same license.  That way we can defend that
> license.  So, if M$ or some other evil empire decides to use
> our code - we can all unite our efforts to stomp out the opposition.
More on this later.

>
> Here's what we want:
>
> 1) Our software is "free" in terms of source code.
> 2) No one can modify or add to our software and release
> it without all source code being available under this same
> license.
That's how all licenses work by definition, for added emphasis, that's clause 
#4 in this license.

>
> If you look deep enough (and believe me, lawyers do) - that
> is basically what the GPL is trying to do.
>
> We need to release under the GPL because we can all unite behind
> that common license.  If M$ (or another company) were to
> challenge the GPL, everyone in the Free Software community
> would be dedicated to the support of the opposition.
> Strength in numbers.

I can defend my own code, thanks :)  Basically, I don't like the GPL, not 
because it's the GPL, but because there are clauses in it I don't like.  Too 
restrictive.  So I won't use it.  This license is exactly what I want, and 
I'll use it.  Since I'm changing this program's license, I'm requesting every 
other author to allow the change, perfectly legal.

That's like saying I should move to a strongly communist country, because, 
even though I have no rights, at least this country will keep me safe.

>
> Viva la GPL (v. 1, 2, and soon to be 3).  Heh.
Ah, so this is the real reason you emailed :)

Hmmm, the GPL is the entire reason I'm forced to have a change-in-license.

-Charles


>> Visit http://master.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<

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