mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > GMP-ECM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2011-10-10, 09:01   #23
Random Poster
 
Random Poster's Avatar
 
Dec 2008

179 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. P-1 View Post
You are in error. The BSD licenses explicitly require that derivative code keep the licence:




Correct. But this is not because derivative works are not required to keep the license, but because the creators of derivative works are not required to make the source available or to extend the BSD license to the modifications they make. The retain the copyright in the modifications and are free to license them more restrictively (or not at all, if they wish).
It seems we disagree about the meaning of "keep the license"; I intended it to mean "keep the license and abide by it", while you apparently understand it as "keep the text of the license, but not necessarily in such a way that it applies to the derivative work".
Random Poster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-10, 13:36   #24
Mr. P-1
 
Mr. P-1's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

7×167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Poster View Post
It seems we disagree about the meaning of "keep the license"; I intended it to mean "keep the license and abide by it", while you apparently understand it as "keep the text of the license, but not necessarily in such a way that it applies to the derivative work".
But it does apply to the derivative work.

A copyright licence is a permission, granted by the copyright owner, to another person allowing them to do things which, without that licence would infringe the owner's copyright.

Suppose Alice creates a work and licences it to Bob under the BSD. Bob creates a derivative work which he licences to Charlie under the GPL. Now both Alice and Bob own copyrights which would be infringed if Charlie were to copy, distribute, or modify the derivative work without a licence. Fortunately he has a licence from both of them: The BSD in respect of Alice's copyright and the GPL in respect of Bob's. Both licences apply, and Charlie must comply with the conditions of both licences simultaneously.
Mr. P-1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-11, 05:49   #25
Random Poster
 
Random Poster's Avatar
 
Dec 2008

179 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. P-1 View Post
A copyright licence is a permission, granted by the copyright owner, to another person allowing them to do things which, without that licence would infringe the owner's copyright.
Yes, I understand the concept of a license.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. P-1 View Post
Suppose Alice creates a work and licences it to Bob under the BSD. Bob creates a derivative work which he licences to Charlie under the GPL. Now both Alice and Bob own copyrights which would be infringed if Charlie were to copy, distribute, or modify the derivative work without a licence. Fortunately he has a licence from both of them: The BSD in respect of Alice's copyright and the GPL in respect of Bob's. Both licences apply, and Charlie must comply with the conditions of both licences simultaneously.
Yes, obviously the BSD license applies in this case. However, if instead Bob places his derivative work under a proprietary license which explicitly forbids any activity that the BSD license might permit, then the BSD license doesn't apply, because it alone can't allow Charlie to do anything; as far as he is concerned, the proprietary license is the only one that matters.
Random Poster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-24, 21:23   #26
Mr. P-1
 
Mr. P-1's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

7×167 Posts
Default

A GPL user's apology
Mr. P-1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-24, 22:16   #27
Christenson
 
Christenson's Avatar
 
Dec 2010
Monticello

5·359 Posts
Default

Nice...
Christenson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-25, 02:50   #28
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

52×73 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. P-1 View Post
Beautiful! And sadly true!
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-25, 11:02   #29
jasonp
Tribal Bullet
 
jasonp's Avatar
 
Oct 2004

352410 Posts
Default

Contrary to what the linked author writes, there's always been a divide between the free speech programmer crowd and the free beer programmer crowd (I remember being involved in the same argument more than a decade ago). I doubt its any worse now than it used to be.

But seriously, he's a rock star and I'm a turd? Because he can work on email?

Actually, the rest of the essays there have some nice reading.

Last fiddled with by jasonp on 2011-10-25 at 11:32
jasonp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-25, 12:40   #30
Mr. P-1
 
Mr. P-1's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

49116 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonp View Post
Contrary to what the linked author writes, there's always been a divide between the free speech programmer crowd and the free beer programmer crowd (I remember being involved in the same argument more than a decade ago). I doubt its any worse now than it used to be.
There's a divide between the "Free Software" crowd and the "Open Source" crowd. Orthogonal to that, there's a divide between the copyleft crowd and the non-copyleft. Neither divide can reasonably be described as one between "free speech" and "free beer".

Quote:
But seriously, he's a rock star and I'm a turd? Because he can work on email?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zed A. Shaw
When you rip on a project or someone for their choice of license you are being gigantic jerk. They worked on it, not you. At a minimum you’re insulting someone’s belief in open source and free software, and how they feel it should progress in our culture.

At the worst you are being ungrateful turds because someone is giving you a piece of software, but you insult their work not on its technical merits, but on a license file you disagree with.
He's not saying you are definitely a turd. He's saying that you're somewhere on a spectrum of people who at one end are merely "insulting" and at the other end are "ungrateful turds". You might be a turd, or you might be elsewhere on that spectrum.

Nor is he saying that you are this because he can work on email. His remark applies to those who "rip into" all kinds of project and all kinds of licence, including those who attack your choice of licence.

Last fiddled with by Mr. P-1 on 2011-10-25 at 12:42
Mr. P-1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-25, 14:35   #31
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
May 2003
Down not across

275016 Posts
Default Freee, as in speech

I have never contributed anything but trivial fragments to GPL-licensed software because I believe in free speech. That is, I have a philosophical objection to the GPL.

When I want to give something away, I want to give it away, not lend it to someone. I want to take credit and/or blame for my work but I don't see why I should constrain anyone who wants to use my work for their own work. That's why the BSD license is the most restrictive I ever use. Why should I insist that someone who uses my software must either also use the same license or have to re--implement what I've freely provided? That's what releasing under the GPL requires.

What you do with your software is entirely your own business but if your license is too restrictive, I can't use it in my work.


Paul
xilman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-25, 14:52   #32
jasonp
Tribal Bullet
 
jasonp's Avatar
 
Oct 2004

22×881 Posts
Default

Of course I didn't complain about his work, but I'm definitely guilty of complaining about the choice of GPL license in general. In fact I just did so above.

I should probably stop weighing in on this, but I always associate GPL software with some sort of ideological focus that goes far beyond 'here's some cool stuff'. Richard Stallman's essays have always gone into detail about the way open source will change the world, by doing things his way, and never about open source being a gift to try to make the world a little better. That's the free-speech-vs-free-beer distinction in my mind.

In addition to the usual works (i.e. Eric Raymond) on the nature of open source, I found Free: The Future of a Radical Price to also be a fascinating read. One of the major themes from that book is that you may think that having to spend even one cent on something implies that it is more valuable than a similar thing that's free, but what always happens is that nobody bothers spending one cent instead. And it's not because your thing sucks, or because everyone is an ungrateful turd, but because people will go to great lengths to avoid the emotional weight of spending money.

At least Shaw has the forceful personality that seems to be a prerequisite for success in the open-source world.
jasonp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-25, 21:23   #33
Mr. P-1
 
Mr. P-1's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

100100100012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonp View Post
...I always associate GPL software with some sort of ideological focus that goes far beyond 'here's some cool stuff'. Richard Stallman's essays have always gone into detail about the way open source will change the world, by doing things his way, and never about open source being a gift to try to make the world a little better. That's the free-speech-vs-free-beer distinction in my mind.
You can't have been paying much attention if you think Richard Stallman has said anything at all about "open source" except to denounce the phrase as missing the point. Stallman advocates for "Free Software", not "Open source". To him, freedom, specifically the four central freedoms is a moral imperative. It is, in his view, unethical to license your own software so as to curtail these freedoms to the user, or even to distribute other people's software so licensed. Indeed he seems to consider the mere use of such software to be ethically challenged. I don't think he is particularly concerned about whether he changes the world, whatever that means. He'd prefer a world in which all software was free, but failing that, he'd like as much of it as possible to be free, or at least all the software than anyone might need or want. He also wants people to be aware of, and to value, software freedom.

It's possible for a person to be aware of, and value software freedom without agreeing with Stallman's ethical position. It's also possible for a person to choose to use the GPL without agreeing with or caring about the philosophy or ethos behind it. Linux, for example, has been GPLed from the start, but Torvalds does not appear to be interested in the ethics of it at all, and only in the politics to the extent that they directly affect him. Linux was, at least to begin with, pretty much "here's some cool stuff".

Those on the Open Source side of the schism may or may not care about software freedom, but if they do, they don't make it central to their advocacy. To them, Open Source is simply a better way of doing software: Better, faster, cheaper, more secure, generally more reliable. But if OSS isn't about free as in speech, neither is it particularly about free as in beer. IBM dumped billions of dollars worth of not SCO's intellectual property into Linux, not because they care about freedom, nor to give the world some cool stuff for free, but because they figured they could make scadsloads of money that way.

The split between supporters of permissive non-copyleft licences like BSD, and those who support strong copyleft such as the GPL is orthogonal to that between "free software" and "open source". Stallman is clear that all free software, that is to say, all software for which users have the four central freedoms, is ethical, regardless of how it is licensed. Copyleft in general, and the GPL in particular, is simply a tool to preserve and promote those freedoms.
Mr. P-1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Software/instructions/questions gd_barnes Conjectures 'R Us 222 2020-07-02 04:24
Software/instructions/questions gd_barnes No Prime Left Behind 48 2009-07-31 01:44
Best Software? Unregistered Homework Help 0 2008-10-07 01:00
Software TTn PSearch 0 2004-05-04 13:16
New software... Xyzzy Lounge 112 2003-10-16 13:23

All times are UTC. The time now is 07:23.

Thu Jul 2 07:23:43 UTC 2020 up 99 days, 4:56, 0 users, load averages: 1.53, 1.35, 1.34

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.