[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 12:57:42 +0000 Sean B. Palmer wrote:

> On Dec 30, 2007 10:32 AM, Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> >  b) license proliferation is bad
> Whilst that's very true, and I would prefer there to be far fewer
> licenses than there are currently, my argument was that there simply
> wasn't a license I could find that meets my (rather humble, I think!)
> requirements. There's no harm in making new licenses if they meet new
> and reasonable needs.

Only when there are *really important* needs that are not even nearly
satisfied by existing licenses.
Please don't take offense for this, but I think that your needs are not
so critical that they cannot be bent a little to be satisfied by an
existing license.

> Wasn't GPLv3 conceived because of new demands with respect to software
> patents and tivoisation and the like? Why were so few other licenses
> revised in light of the same new demands, I wonder?

The GNU GPL v3 is worse than the GNU GPL v2 in my opinion: it has
several minor improvements over its predecessor, but implements a broken
copyleft in some respects.
Start here, if you are interested in the gory details:

> > I think the simple license that you called "GNU All Permissive
> > License" satisfies your requirements.
> > If the 2-line-length constraint is so important, well, who said that
> > those two lines have to be 70 column long?
> Nobody; but Guido van Rossum says they must be 79 columns :-)

Is that a recommendation or a Python syntax rule?  I don't remember any
such rule in Python and the following test script seems to work without
any complaints from the interpreter:


# very long line, including copyright notice, permission notice, disclaimer of warranty, credits, acknowledgements, and some funny jokes...

print "Hello, world!"

> Really the difference comes down to the following:
> * * *
> Copyright 2007, Sean B. Palmer, inamidst.com
> Released to the public under the Example License.
> * * *
> Compared to:
> * * *
> Copyright 2007, Sean B. Palmer, inamidst.com
> Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification,
> are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright
> notice and this notice are preserved.
> * * *
> To most people these probably look identical, but the former is by far
> the more preferable to me. It's my idiosyncrasy, and I'm gonna stick
> by it! :-)

Since you should place the Example License text somewhere accompanying
your source code (for clarity's sake, so that recipients know their
rights even in the absense of an Internet connection), I think the
decision boils down to: do you prefer

 (A) having a short license included in all your source files

or rather

 (B) having even shorter pointer to a separate file (e.g.: LICENSE.txt)
     containing your more or less short license


> Anyway, thanks for your opinion that the GNU APL is DFSG compatible!

You're welcome.
Once again: please remember that this is my *personal* opinion.

Please do _not_ reply to my personal e-mail address, while Cc:ing the
list address, as I didn't ask you to do so.
Please follow the code of conduct on Debian lists:

 Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpZRReEt2MgK.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: