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

List:       ruby-talk
Subject:    Re: GUI With Ruby
From:       Chad Perrin <perrin () apotheon ! com>
Date:       2007-03-11 23:17:14
Message-ID: 20070311231628.GE26138 () apotheon ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 03:53:05AM +0900, Robert Dober wrote:
> >
> I am quite surprised to hear that from you. I always have seen you as
> a practical guy and I intend that as a compliment.
> Now the exact wording of your licence simply means that someone can
> take your code away from you (theoretically not because you can prove
> prior art by definition) but you might need a lawyer etc.
> 
> I feel that the GPL is not *easy* to use but I also feel that it is 
> important.
> I am nervous about the BSD or Ruby licence, although they are
> convenient for sure - in the short run.
> I have the feeling that they are naive and that the wonderful things
> they do not really
> protect might be taken away from the community one day.
> 
> But I am quite a pessimist.

Optimist:  the glass is half full
Pessimist:  the glass is half empty
Cynic:  the glass is half empty, but it's probably not something you
wanted to drink anyway

I'm a cynic, according to my own definition: an optimist that has
learned from life experience.  I am concerned with the notion that the
BSD license doesn't ensure that we will always have source code
available to us when we get the binary.  On the other hand, I am *more*
concerned that the *forced distribution of source code* mandated by the
GPL is actually more restrictive in practice.  For one thing, it
prevents anyone that didn't have the foresight to get the source at the
same time as the binaries from redistributing the binaries in his or her
possession, unless he or she can still find the source.  For another, it
requires, in many cases, for those with limited resources to choose
between maintaining an archive of source code with redundant backups for
several years after distributing binaries, or simply not distributing.

I definitely prefer the BSD license.  It would be better to have access
to a binary with no source than neither (to compare worst-case
scenarios).

Of course, I find both annoyingly limited in applicability to a single
form of copyrightable work, and the BSD license's applicability to
derivative works is ambiguous.  I still prefer the BSD license over the
GPL, especially considering recent examples of the FSF threatening legal
action against small community Linux distributions for debatable
violations of GPL terms.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your
hands and hopping when a rock or a club will do." - McCloctnick the Lucid

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