[TriLUG] I have some sticky licensing questions

[Steve Litt]

On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 17:01:13 -0400
Scott Chilcote <scottchilcote at att.net> wrote:

> On 07/05/2013 01:30 PM, Peter Neilson wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 13:09:41 -0400, William Sutton
> > <william at trilug.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Ask your favorite IP lawyer?
> >>
> >> Me, personally, I'd release my code with a BSD license and let them
> >> do whatever they want (or nothing at all) with it.
> >
> > GPL denies the proprietary nature of code (and just about everything
> > else). As much as I like rms, and even though I use emacs daily, I
> > cannot see using the GPL for serious work. That it is viral just
> > makes it worse.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> On Fri, 5 Jul 2013, Steve Litt wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I'm currently writing a standalone Python program that takes the
> >>> output of the eLyXer LyX to HTML converter, makes it suitable to
> >>> make an ePub ebook file, and produces the table of contents
> >>> (toc.ncx).
> >>>
> >>> LyX is licensed GPL2 or later. eLyXer is licensed GPL3 or later. I
> >>> dislike GPL3 (too copyleft and restrictive for my taste), and I
> >>> would never allow a license based on some future license version.
> >>> What if somehow Larry Ellison buys the FSF someday?
> 
> I see what you did there.  You said that code was naturally
> proprietary.  

Whoa, down boy. I didn't say that. I said the GPL3 is too copyleft and
restrictive for my taste. Obviously code isn't naturally proprietary.
Or naturally free. It just naturally compiles into something that can
run a computer.

> The implication is that any license that enforces
> freedom upon it leaves a taint somehow.  

I didn't mean to imply that.

> I see that aspect (free vs
> proprietary) of any body of code as being the decision of its
> creator(s), and as a fellow developer I do my best to respect their
> intentions.

Yes.

> 
> I sympathise with the FSF in that I find the term viral to be
> deceptively negative.  

I see where the "viral" characterization comes from. The only way to
link my code to GPL code is for my code to also become copyleft. So one
could characterize it as going from code to code to code. Kind of like
a virus. But yeah, I think "copyleft" is a much better
characterization, and a characterization without the negative code
speak, and a characterization less likely to be used by Steve Ballmer.

> I have benefited tremendously from software
> whose authors intended it to be widely shared.  

My whole business runs on such software.

> It's up to them to
> determine how it is used.  That hasn't kept me from building a career
> around their work, much the contrary.

LOL, which brings us back to my original question.

> 
> The software licenses that I find truly repugnant are the ones with
> pages of inscrutable print that require me to click "I agree" before I
> can use something that I already purchased.  They eliminate just about
> every right I would otherwise have as the purchaser of a product. 
> Compared to that legalized piracy, "viral freedom" almost seems like a
> gift from shangri-la!

Now THAT'S a statement I can't possibly argue with.

Thanks,

SteveT

Steve Litt                *  http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training  *  Human Performance