Re: draft for new Vim license
Whoops. Botched a couple CC's. I'll forward them.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 12:15:38PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> > I'm a bit confused here:
> > d) When you have a modified Vim which includes changes, as mentioned
> After this comes "under c)".
At the time I quoted this, I had been reading that as a reference
("which includes changes, like those mentioned in D.")
> > What is a modified Vim that doens't include changes? (Do you mean a
> > diff? You don't require that a diff be used; more likely I have a whole
> > source tree that's been changed.)
> Isn't it clear that this is about further distributing a modified Vim as
> was created as mentioned under c)?
Does this mean that you can only use 3c for your own changes; and 3d for
other peoples' changes? That's ... odd.
> > 4) The contact information as mentioned under 3) must not be removed
> > or changed.
> If the original author makes a correction, this can be considered to be
> a new change and a new modified version, which replaces the older one.
He can't change it; 4) forbids it.
> > Don't assume this means it hasn't happened. I have, in the past, tries
> > a program; gone "hey, this is neat--maybe I'll work on it", looked at
> > the license, saw that I didn't like it and simply said "oh well".
> True. I have done that with GPL-licensed softare many times.
Why? What about the GPL would make you not want to contribute to
something using it?
> It's unusual for a library to go under the GPL. Mostly the LGPL is
No, not really. A large number of licenses are GPL.
> used, which was made for libraries. I don't know the reasons why the
> GPM library doesn't use the LGPL. It's annoying for people who link
> software with it.
I think it's mostly a fundamental difference in what people want done
with their software.
People who make libraries GPL probably tend to not want their code used
by proprietary software *at all*; they don't want their contributed time
being used to aid it.
Those who make it LGPL are, I think, often more interested with changes to
their own code being made available, and don't care if the code happens to
aid something that's GPL-incompatible (like closed-source software) as long
as the code itself remains free. I'm in this group--if I make my code
publically available, I want that code to remain publically available,
and I want it to remain open source, but I don't care at all if it happens
to help a closed-source program. (Good! Someone else is writing less code
and reinventing the wheel one less time.)
A distinction I make (that the GPL does not) between linking against code and
reusing source is that linking can't change the original at all; it prevents
them from making any changes internally. Closed-source linking against my
library makes my library no less free. I like open source, but people have
the freedom to not use it, and I'd rather not attempt to penalize people who
don't make GPL-compatible software (willingly or by force of employer) by
making them rewrite code. Political rewrites are a waste of time.
(There's a third class: those who make it LGPL in the interests of getting
the library used. This is the reason some GNU libraries are LGPL.)
(One quibble I have with the LGPL is, in fact, its GPL-compatibility clause
(#3). If I release code with the intention that people writing GPL-
incompatible code can make use of it, I'd prefer it stay that way. I
can't have that and be GPL-compatible, though, and I'd choose GPL