ANN: Fuzzy machine learning framework v1.2

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

The software is a library as well as a GTK GUI front-end for machine
learning projects. Features:

- Based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets and the possibility theory;
- Features are fuzzy;
- Fuzzy classes, which may intersect and can be treated as features;
- Numeric, enumeration features and ones based on linguistic variables;
- Derived and evaluated features;
- Classifiers as features for building hierarchical systems;
- User-defined features;
- An automatic classification refinement in case of dependent features;
- Incremental learning;
- Object-oriented software design;
- Features, training sets and classifiers are extensible objects;
- Automatic garbage collection;
- Generic data base support (through ODBC);
- Text I/O and HTML routines for features, training sets and classifiers;
- GTK+ widgets for features, training sets and classifiers;
- Examples of use.

This release is packaged for Windows, Fedora (yum) and Debian (apt). The
software is public domain (licensed under GM GPL).

http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de/ada/fuzzy_ml.htm

Changes to the version 1.1:

- This release fixes minor bugs in importing training sets from text files;
- The 'hicolor' icon theme was included into binary distribution for
Windows.

--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

[J-P. Rosen]

Le 28/05/2012 12:08, Dmitry A. Kazakov a écrit :
> This release is packaged for Windows, Fedora (yum) and Debian (apt). The
> software is public domain (licensed under GM GPL).

Just to be picky: if it's licensed under GMGPL, it's free software, but
it's not public domain. Public domain means that you give up all your
intellectual rights (possibly allowing someone to take your work and
putting a restrictive license upon it).

--
J-P. Rosen
Adalog
2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX
Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00
http://www.adalog.fr

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 28 May 2012 13:36:53 +0200, J-P. Rosen wrote:

> Le 28/05/2012 12:08, Dmitry A. Kazakov a écrit :
>> This release is packaged for Windows, Fedora (yum) and Debian (apt). The
>> software is public domain (licensed under GM GPL).
> Just to be picky: if it's licensed under GMGPL, it's free software, but
> it's not public domain. Public domain means that you give up all your
> intellectual rights (possibly allowing someone to take your work and
> putting a restrictive license upon it).

I thought GMGPL allowed derivative works to be restricted as anybody
wanted?

[Kulin]

"J-P. Rosen" <ro...@adalog.fr> wrote:

> Le 28/05/2012 12:08, Dmitry A. Kazakov a écrit :
> > This release is packaged for Windows, Fedora (yum) and Debian (apt). The
> > software is public domain (licensed under GM GPL).
> Just to be picky: if it's licensed under GMGPL, it's free software, but
> it's not public domain.

Just to be picky, if it's licensed under GMGPL it is not free software, it's
GPL software. GPL is a viral, forcible open source license. It has nothing
to do with freedom. GPL software is open source, but it's not free.

There are free software licenses such as BSD and MIT.

> Public domain means that you give up all your intellectual rights
> (possibly allowing someone to take your work and putting a restrictive
> license upon it).

I thought the GPL was about intellectual rights denial, so it's a bit hard
to understand your two comments at the same time. Nevertheless, the public
domain copy remains and people are free to use it or not, however they
wish. They can relicense their copy or modifications they make but it
doesn't cause the public domain instance to become encumbered.

Richard Hipp didn't go broke placing sqlite and fossil in the public domain.

[Georg Bauhaus]

Kulin <rema...@reece.net.au> wrote:
> "J-P. Rosen" <ro...@adalog.fr> wrote:
>

>> Le 28/05/2012 12:08, Dmitry A. Kazakov a Ècrit :

>>> This release is packaged for Windows, Fedora (yum) and Debian (apt). The
>>> software is public domain (licensed under GM GPL).
>> Just to be picky: if it's licensed under GMGPL, it's free software, but
>> it's not public domain.
>
> Just to be picky,

In this case the discussion hinges on the word "free"
and its uses with software. Since there is no single
definition of the word "free", discussions will necessarily
lead into morass. The GPL is openly stating the restrictions
it imposes on the uses of a work (tit for tat at the source level).
The more permissive licenses do that, too (for example,
"keep us out of it"). The sets of "may (not) do this or that"
terms are different.

There is a profitable way of discussing whose perspective
on "free" is right. It is when one can turn discussions
into money and/or advertisements, such as through journals
or in fora of market research organizations such as
Google, or Facebook. There is less to be had from discussing
"freedom" on c.l.Ada, I should think.

[Georg Bauhaus]

The exception says it applies to instances of the given work.
LGPL sounds different.

In fact, it is not possible to give up originators rights under
German law. If authors publish a work, the connection with
their work cannot normally be removed. They may give rights to use
their work, though, within bounds imposed by overruling law
as usual.

There is no public domain (US style) in continental
Europe, TTBOMK. (The same term may mean something
different in the UK, IIRC.)

[Simon Wright]

Kulin <rema...@reece.net.au> writes:

> I thought the GPL was about intellectual rights denial

Nonsense.

[Simon Wright]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mai...@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> I thought GMGPL allowed derivative works to be restricted as anybody
> wanted?

Depends what you mean by 'derivative'.

I can take your GMGPL'd work and use it to build proprietary software.

But I can't take your work and issue it myself with a different licence
(I can, I believe, issue it with a plain GPL, but can't see the evidence
for that).

I'm not sure how much I can amend your work before its GMGPL no longer
applies. I guess that bugfixes would be OK! (not that I'm suggesting
there are any bugs, of course ...)

[Nomen Nescio]

Even more reason to use an accepted free software license like BSD or MIT,
if your intent is to share your code openly and still retain the copyright.

[Nomen Nescio]

Georg Bauhaus <rm-host...@maps.arcor.de> wrote:

> Kulin <rema...@reece.net.au> wrote:
> > "J-P. Rosen" <ro...@adalog.fr> wrote:
> >
> >> Le 28/05/2012 12:08, Dmitry A. Kazakov a Ècrit :
> >>> This release is packaged for Windows, Fedora (yum) and Debian (apt). The
> >>> software is public domain (licensed under GM GPL).
> >> Just to be picky: if it's licensed under GMGPL, it's free software, but
> >> it's not public domain.
> >
> > Just to be picky,
>
> In this case the discussion hinges on the word "free"
> and its uses with software. Since there is no single
> definition of the word "free"

Freedom means the absence of restriction, and it doesn't matter that serfs
and GPL fanbois have participated in Stallman's obscene twisting of the
concept for his nefarious purposes.

> discussions will necessarily lead into morass.

Only for liars and politicians. Everyone else agrees what freedom means.

> The GPL is openly stating the restrictions it imposes on the uses of a
> work

Bzzt! There's your answer, it's not free.

> (tit for tat at the source level). The more permissive licenses do that,
> too (for example, "keep us out of it"). The sets of "may (not) do this or
> that" terms are different.

The MIT license doesn't seem to have any restrictions at all. The BSD
license seems to say "don't say you wrote this" but otherwise you can do
what you want. They're saying you shouldn't lie or plagiarize, but that is
not a restriction. They could also say not to rob or murder, but all of
those things are already agreed by society to be wrong and they have nothing
to do with the software itself, so I think the (new) BSD and MIT licenses
are really free software licenses. There are others.

> There is a profitable way of discussing whose perspective
> on "free" is right. It is when one can turn discussions
> into money and/or advertisements, such as through journals
> or in fora of market research organizations such as
> Google, or Facebook. There is less to be had from discussing
> "freedom" on c.l.Ada, I should think.

Agreed, but I can't let the GPL lies go unchallenged. If you spout, I'll
stomp it out.

[Simon Wright]

Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> writes:

> Bzzt! There's your answer, it's not free.

Rubbish.

I had thought you were fairly sensible, but ...

[Ludovic Brenta]

Nomen Nescio writes on comp.lang.ada:
> Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>> Kulin wrote:

>>> "J-P. Rosen" wrote:
>>>> Le 28/05/2012 12:08, Dmitry A. Kazakov a Ècrit :
>>>>> This release is packaged for Windows, Fedora (yum) and Debian
>>>>> (apt). The software is public domain (licensed under GM GPL).
>>>> Just to be picky: if it's licensed under GMGPL, it's free software,
>>>> but it's not public domain.
>>>
>>> Just to be picky,
>>
>> In this case the discussion hinges on the word "free" and its uses
>> with software. Since there is no single definition of the word "free"
>
> Freedom means the absence of restriction, and it doesn't matter that
> serfs and GPL fanbois have participated in Stallman's obscene twisting
> of the concept for his nefarious purposes.

Stallman's only "nefarious purpose" is to prevent people from removing
freedom from free software. Therefore, freedom is not the total absence
of restriction, it is the fact that the only restriction is "thou shalt
not make this software proprietary". For this reason, the GPL defends
freedom much more vigorously than the BSD or MIT licenses do.

--
Ludovic Brenta.

[Ludovic Brenta]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" writes on comp.lang.ada:

The GMGPL or, since GCC 4.4, GPL3 with Runtime Library Exception, allows
people to distribute *binaries* including (aka linked with) your
libraries under whatever license they wish. They cannot, however,
redistribute the *sources* of your library under whatever license they
wish. If they choose to redistribute the sources, they must do so under
your original license terms and with your copyright.

--
Ludovic Brenta.

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 28 May 2012 18:55:11 +0100, Simon Wright wrote:

> I'm not sure how much I can amend your work before its GMGPL no longer
> applies.

I hoped that were possible.

> I guess that bugfixes would be OK! (not that I'm suggesting
> there are any bugs, of course ...)

Huh, there are always bugs. It is amazing how different looks same code
when revised just one year later.

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

Why anybody wanted to distribute same stuff under a different license?
Licensing should encourage new work, public or proprietary, no matter. Or I
again missed something?

[Ludovic Brenta]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" writes on comp.lang.ada:
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 21:23:09 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>
>> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" writes on comp.lang.ada:
>>> On Mon, 28 May 2012 13:36:53 +0200, J-P. Rosen wrote:
>>>> Le 28/05/2012 12:08, Dmitry A. Kazakov a écrit :
>>>>> This release is packaged for Windows, Fedora (yum) and Debian
>>>>> (apt). The software is public domain (licensed under GM GPL).
>>>> Just to be picky: if it's licensed under GMGPL, it's free software,
>>>> but it's not public domain. Public domain means that you give up
>>>> all your intellectual rights (possibly allowing someone to take
>>>> your work and putting a restrictive license upon it).
>>>
>>> I thought GMGPL allowed derivative works to be restricted as anybody
>>> wanted?
>>
>> The GMGPL or, since GCC 4.4, GPL3 with Runtime Library Exception,
>> allows people to distribute *binaries* including (aka linked with)
>> your libraries under whatever license they wish. They cannot,
>> however, redistribute the *sources* of your library under whatever
>> license they wish. If they choose to redistribute the sources, they
>> must do so under your original license terms and with your copyright.
>
> Why anybody wanted to distribute same stuff under a different license?

That's the whole point. Some people want link your libraries into their
programs and sell their programs including your libraries for a profit
without paying you or acknowledging your contribution. i.e. they want
to sell your libraries under a proprietary license of their choosing,
different from the license you chose when publishing your libraries.

> Licensing should encourage new work, public or proprietary, no
> matter. Or I again missed something?

Everyone in the free and open source software movement agrees with these
goals, the disagreement is only about the means to achieve them.

The FSF school of thought states that, to encourage sharing,
redistribution and new work based on free software, it is necessary that
free software remain free. On other words, taking away the Four
Freedoms granted by free software must be forbidden. Here, "sharing and
new work" is understood in an academic way: to further the state of the
art and make new breakthroughs.

The other school of thought states that permissive licenses such as BSD
and MIT encourage sharing and new work much better by allowing Big
Proprietary Corporations to use free software in their proprietary
products, even if said Corporations change the license along the way to
make the software proprietary. Here, "sharing and new work" is
understood in an industrial way: to allow more software to be sold (not
necessarily by the author of the libraries, though).

The GPL with Runtime Library Exception is a middle ground: the original
author retains control on source redistributions and license thereof,
but allows binary redistribution, as part of larger works, under any
license outside the control of the original author. Here again, you can
see the middle ground in two different ways. One is to say: since Big
Proprietary Corporations are going to sell proprietary software anyway,
let's allow them to run this software on a Free Software operating
system and libraries, so we can displace proprietary operating systems
and libraries. The other is to say: let's allow Big Proprietary
Corporations to sell even more proprietary software by giving them our
libraries for nothing.

You alone can decide on the license that best meets your particular
goals.

--
Ludovic Brenta.

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Mon, 28 May 2012 13:51:34 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov
<mai...@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:

No. BSD and some others do. GMGPL don't.

--
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Mon, 28 May 2012 19:42:54 +0200, Simon Wright <si...@pushface.org> a
écrit:

> Kulin <rema...@reece.net.au> writes:
>
>> I thought the GPL was about intellectual rights denial
>
> Nonsense.

In one sense, this make sense.

Say you create a fork of some library or application, covered by the GPL.
You are forced to use the GPL to distribute it, or else, forced to not
distribute it. That's that kind of denial of intellectual rights people
complaining about the GPL typically means (I'm just guessing that was the
same for him). Things are like you are not allowed to be the owner of your
own work. That's why some people keep GPL far away from them (even a
single line of GPL inside a million lines application would expose the
case). Either they work on their own peace of work (even recreate what's
GPL, if necessary), or on someone else work, only if the license does not
deny their property and freedom with their *own work*.

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Mon, 28 May 2012 20:34:47 +0200, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> a
écrit:

> The MIT license doesn't seem to have any restrictions at all. The BSD
> license seems to say "don't say you wrote this" but otherwise you can do
> what you want.

Not exactly. To the “don't say you wrote this”, you have to add “give
credit to the original author if ever you derive from it”. Your statement
is only valid is the case of the redistribution of an unmodified work.
Anyway, modified or not, credit to the original author(s) must be kept.

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Mon, 28 May 2012 21:20:27 +0200, Ludovic Brenta
<lud...@ludovic-brenta.org> a écrit:

> Stallman's only "nefarious purpose" is to prevent people from removing
> freedom from free software.

No. It was to force people to a its license, thus denying one's freedom to
apply on it's own work. There is no way with whatever license to revoke
it, only the copyright owner can do. Say you have a BSD library or
application. Say one create a derivative work from it. Say he/she release
it under proprietary license (worst case to the eye of most consumers).
Then, the original BSD library or application is still not proprietary, so
no freedom is lost (Stallman's purpose was not to protect anything, but to
force people). There is simply no way to remove freedom from anything,
only the owner can do so (and anyway, could not apply to what was already
distributed). Stallman created an fear which should have never existed, to
force people, and mainly profited from the confusion between
free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-speech, to promote it (personal opinion).
GPL is more about free-as-in-beer than about free-as-in-speech, and the
opposite for BSD and MIT (personal opinion again).

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Mon, 28 May 2012 21:23:09 +0200, Ludovic Brenta
<lud...@ludovic-brenta.org> a écrit:

If I'm not wrong, the GMGPL is only about linking. Apart of that, the
source itself is still under GPL, which means if someone modify his
source, he/she have to either redistribute the modified source with the
application, at not charge (disabling any hope of selling, even for a
single cent, what ever the amount of work done), or else, he/she have to
not distribute it at all.

While I may be wrong with that tricky part (GPL is all about tricks
everywhere :-P ). If I'm wrong, just tell, would be glade to know.

[Simon Wright]

"Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick...@yahoo.fr> writes:

> Say you create a fork of some library or application, covered by the
> GPL. You are forced to use the GPL to distribute it, or else, forced
> to not distribute it. That's that kind of denial of intellectual
> rights people complaining about the GPL typically means

I've never understood this attitude. No one wants to deny anyone their
rights to their own work; but when that work is founded on my work I
have rights too.

[Simon Wright]

"Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick...@yahoo.fr> writes:

> If I'm not wrong, the GMGPL is only about linking. Apart of that, the
> source itself is still under GPL, which means if someone modify his
> source, he/she have to either redistribute the modified source with
> the application, at not charge (disabling any hope of selling, even
> for a single cent, what ever the amount of work done), or else,
> he/she have to not distribute it at all.

There would surely be a case for redistributing just the modified
library source, and not the proprietary application.

But this viewpoint may explain why some corporate users of the Booch
Components asked for bugfix releases of the whole library rather than
just patches.

[Nomen Nescio]

Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57
)

<yannick...@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> Le Mon, 28 May 2012 20:34:47 +0200, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> a

> écrit:

> > The MIT license doesn't seem to have any restrictions at all. The BSD
> > license seems to say "don't say you wrote this" but otherwise you can do
> > what you want.
>

> Not exactly. To the â??don't say you wrote thisâ??, you have to add â??give
> credit to the original author if ever you derive from itâ??. Your statement

> is only valid is the case of the redistribution of an unmodified work.
> Anyway, modified or not, credit to the original author(s) must be kept.

I don't dispute the fine points you raised but my view is that those
requirements are accepted common decency in interactions between people and
aren't restrictions on the software per se.

For example if you teach a person something or give him an answer to a
problem and then he presents it as his own work, everyone should view him
as an ungrateful scoundrel and cheat. This is the way human interaction
works, "credit where credit is due" is expected proper behavior. Plagiarism
is already viewed as misconduct to the point of criminal liability in some
cases, and attribution is an established basic social requirement. I don't
view that as a licensing restriction since it applies to everything.

It has nothing to do with software specifically, it is related to how people
conduct themselves everywhere in society. People in the software industry
have to follow the same rules and social standards as everyone else. Those
rules apply to everything, not just computer programs. But even if they are
rules, they don't have any affect on the software itself. It can be used,
changed, distributed, or withheld, as anyone sees fit. It doesn't seem to me
requiring attribution means there are any restrictions on the software.

[Gustaf Thorslund]

On 2012-05-28 20:34, Nomen Nescio wrote:

> Freedom means the absence of restriction,

I don't disagree with restrictions in freedom.

>> discussions will necessarily lead into morass.
>
> Only for liars and politicians. Everyone else agrees what freedom means.

Then lets find out who of us is the liar and who is the politician.

>> The GPL is openly stating the restrictions it imposes on the uses of a
>> work
>
> Bzzt! There's your answer, it's not free.
>
>> (tit for tat at the source level). The more permissive licenses do that,
>> too (for example, "keep us out of it"). The sets of "may (not) do this or
>> that" terms are different.
>
> The MIT license doesn't seem to have any restrictions at all. The BSD
> license seems to say "don't say you wrote this" but otherwise you can do
> what you want. They're saying you shouldn't lie or plagiarize, but that is
> not a restriction. They could also say not to rob or murder, but all of
> those things are already agreed by society to be wrong and they have nothing
> to do with the software itself, so I think the (new) BSD and MIT licenses
> are really free software licenses. There are others.

Without closing your eyes, please read:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

-->
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
-->

I'd say there are a number of restrictions here. To me it makes sense to
have them there to give the original developer some kind of freedom in
the rest of his life. But for anyone extending the work it could be seen
as a restriction.

Regards,
Gustaf
--
http://gustaf.thorslund.org

[Nomen Nescio]

Ludovic Brenta <lud...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:

> Nomen Nescio writes on comp.lang.ada:
> > Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> >> Kulin wrote:
> >>> "J-P. Rosen" wrote:
> >>>> Le 28/05/2012 12:08, Dmitry A. Kazakov a Ècrit :
> >>>>> This release is packaged for Windows, Fedora (yum) and Debian
> >>>>> (apt). The software is public domain (licensed under GM GPL).
> >>>> Just to be picky: if it's licensed under GMGPL, it's free software,
> >>>> but it's not public domain.
> >>>
> >>> Just to be picky,
> >>
> >> In this case the discussion hinges on the word "free" and its uses
> >> with software. Since there is no single definition of the word "free"
> >
> > Freedom means the absence of restriction, and it doesn't matter that
> > serfs and GPL fanbois have participated in Stallman's obscene twisting
> > of the concept for his nefarious purposes.
>
> Stallman's only "nefarious purpose" is to prevent people from removing
> freedom from free software.

No, Stallman is a self-affirmed Marxist atheist who has as his stated
purpose (see GNU Free Software Manifesto) the elimination of proprietary
software and to that end, the destruction of programming as a profession.
He's a sick puppy, and nothing he has done in his life has ever had any
connection to freedom. He's the angry young man from a rich family who
pretends to champion the cause of the unwashed masses, and you fall for
it. He's the Stalin of Software and you're just another one of his loyal
victims. You would think people would learn, but you just don't get
it. There's more money and glory in religion than there is in software, so
he built a church and you fill the collection boxes.

You are twisting words to suit your own misrepresentations. Software is
only free if it has no restrictions. GPL is a forcible open source
license. It has much to do with open source but nothing to do with freedom.

If you license your software under BSD or MIT licenses, it remains free
forever. No matter what anybody does, it doesn't change what you
released. If you believe in freedom then you won't force people to think
like you think or do what you want. GPL clearly shows the intent is force
and obedience to Stallman's sick ideals, it has nothing to do with freedom.

> Therefore, freedom is not the total absence of restriction,

Based on no argument at all, "therefore?" No, not therefore. Freedom has one
definition and that is absence of restrictions, constraints, etc. Forcing
people to do what you want is not called freedom, it's called bullying. And
lying to try and redefine terms like freedom to mean something it's not
smacks of pure evil.

> it is the fact that the only restriction is "thou shalt not make this
> software proprietary".

That is also false. You would think people in comp.lang.ada would understand
that since Adacore made a business out of making GPL software proprietary.

> For this reason, the GPL defends freedom much more vigorously than the BSD
> or MIT licenses do.

That statement is a perversion of reality. GPL defends the social platform
and Marxist ideals and sick agenda of Richard Stallman, and nothing
else. BSD and MIT licenses are true free software licenses. GPL is like
herpes. It's a gift nobody wants if they would think it through, although in
the heat of the moment sometimes people make terrible mistakes.

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 29.05.12 09:31, Nomen Nescio wrote:

> For example if you teach a person something or give him an answer to a
> problem and then he presents it as his own work, everyone should view him
> as an ungrateful scoundrel and cheat. This is the way human interaction
> works, "credit where credit is due" is expected proper behavior. Plagiarism
> is already viewed as misconduct to the point of criminal liability in some
> cases, and attribution is an established basic social requirement. I don't
> view that as a licensing restriction since it applies to everything.
>
> It has nothing to do with software specifically, it is related to how people
> conduct themselves everywhere in society.

Well put. Behavior is governed by norms. Some informal, some formal.
What if the norms are violated? A partial answer is found in
Terms and Conditions of licenses.

An individual Y creating a work of software sometimes misbehaves
by someone else's standards. For example, by the standards of licensor X.
Whatever Y's motives might be, Y has behaved in a way that X finds
unacceptable.

If X is a software developer, what should X do about Y's behavior?
Enter licenses.

Considering the example you have described:

> For example if you teach a person something or give him an answer to a
> problem and then he presents it as his own work, everyone should view him
> as an ungrateful scoundrel and cheat.

Public disdain exists, as did pillories, for good or bad.
In any case, the "should" part of "everyone should" is
typically translated into The Law, whenever a society feels
these norms had better be formalized.

So, misbehavior and a desire to sanction them leads to licenses,
directly:

If X wishes to prevent others from infringing X's rights through
misconduct, then X is free to pick a license that helps establish
this goal (of proper conduct), using legal force as necessary,
or desired.

Licenses help X when Y will otherwise ignore X when X asks for
proper conduct. And we are free to not care about Y's misconduct.

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 29.05.12 04:18, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
> Le Mon, 28 May 2012 21:20:27 +0200, Ludovic Brenta
> <lud...@ludovic-brenta.org> a écrit:
>> Stallman's only "nefarious purpose" is to prevent people from removing
>> freedom from free software.
> No. It was to force people to a its license, thus denying one's freedom to
> apply on it's own work.

It is stunning to see programmers who are used to formal,
rational thinking, becoming irrational. ;-) ;-)

The *combination* of someone else's work and yours is not your own
work! The resulting work is *not* the sole intellectual property
of either contributor. You may have the right, though, to do
business with the resulting work without consulting this some
else, if his/her license says so. (E.g., one does not have
intellectual rights in Microsoft's runtime components even
though their license text says that one may distribute them
with an application.)

Respect the wishes of this someone else!

If someone is more generous than GPL etc. would imply, it is
their choice. They own the rights. And I think we are not to
discuss their generosity, or accuse them of the lack thereof,
if so perceived by us!

[Ludovic Brenta]

Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> Stallman's only "nefarious purpose" is to prevent people from removing
>> freedom from free software.
>
> No, Stallman is a self-affirmed Marxist atheist who has as his stated

[hate-speech snipped]

You have a right to be wrong, of course. But you do not have the
right to
dictate to anyone what license they should use for their software.
Personally, I choose to publish all of my software under GPLv3 with
*NO*
exception, precisely because people like you have convinced me to.
You
can choose to reuse my software in your *free* software but you cannot
be
a freeloader.

--
Ludovic Brenta.

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Tue, 29 May 2012 11:38:02 +0200, Georg Bauhaus
<rm.dash...@futureapps.de> a écrit:

> It is stunning to see programmers who are used to formal,
> rational thinking, becoming irrational. ;-) ;-)
>
> The *combination* of someone else's work and yours is not your own
> work!

On the opposite, that's rational and practical. There is an issue with
proper measure of things here. Think about the extreme case of a single
line of GPL in a million lines… you see? To summarize, if you just did
some tiny stuff or some easy bug fix, that's not an issue, but if you did
more big things during months, better not create the big thing on a GPL
component and recreate the GPL component if needed (and give up and do
nothing if the GPL component is too big). There is also an issue with
linking, even if you clearly keep yours and others separate, you are still
in trouble, even if you did not derive from another ones work, but added
something which link to it (via non-LGPL libraries or via object files),
what you added, is not yours in practice, as you cannot decide what the
license of your own part is. Or else you have to redistribute only you own
source part, and require consumers to build all, which is not what
consumers usually want (there want something ready to use). Better a
proprietary license which allow you to distribute a ready to use
application, than such a burden to you and users.

> The resulting work is *not* the sole intellectual property
> of either contributor.

Here is the point. But the story goes as if it was the sole property of
the initial authors, which decided of everything for all others who
succeed him.

That said, as already noticed, this does not prevent anyone to simply
avoid GPL and to rely on their own only (fortunately, Stallman could not
find a way to force all authors to use the GPL for their original work,
but still sadly make many consumers think that's the only one legitimate
license).

But even then, there is still another issue involving culture, I will
express later in a reply to Simon (this will be a personal opinion again).

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Tue, 29 May 2012 10:23:40 +0200, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> a
écrit:

> No, Stallman is a self-affirmed Marxist atheist

Either true or not, better avoid this kind of comment about politic and
religion here. That's not the place for. Discussing licensing and licenses
properties may be worth, but not that.

[Thomas Løcke]

On 05/28/2012 08:34 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Freedom means the absence of restriction, and it doesn't matter that serfs
> and GPL fanbois have participated in Stallman's obscene twisting of the
> concept for his nefarious purposes.

In what part of human life does freedom equal a complete absence of
restrictions? It might mean an absence of undue restrictions, but that
is surely not the same as no restrictions at all.

Freedom is being able to do what you want, until your actions infringe
on other peoples freedom.

Nobody is forcing you to use GPL software. You are free to use software
released under licenses that are more in tune with your personal ideals.

That is freedom for you. You should enjoy that, instead of trying to
limit the freedom of others.

The GPL serves its purpose, as do all the other open source licenses.

And please stop with the name-calling. People are not liars simply
because they don't agree with your definition of what freedom is.

--
Thomas Lųcke | tho...@12boo.net | http://12boo.net

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 29.05.12 18:11, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
> Le Tue, 29 May 2012 11:38:02 +0200, Georg Bauhaus
> <rm.dash...@futureapps.de> a écrit:
>> It is stunning to see programmers who are used to formal,
>> rational thinking, becoming irrational. ;-) ;-)
>>
>> The *combination* of someone else's work and yours is not your own
>> work!
> On the opposite, that's rational and practical. There is an issue with proper
> measure of things here. Think about the extreme case of a single line of GPL
> in a million lines… you see?

The GPL clarifies, to some extent, what constitutes a derivative work.

If your software depends on library L, then regardless of its
size L's license is going to apply. I don't know any license
that defines what size removes the "depends" clause.

(That's like "a little pregnant"; oddly, whenever the GPL
is mentioned together with "viral", then "ratio" vanishes.)

[Summary of how the GPL restricts freeloading snipped.]

Here are two licensing test questions:

Suppose you have written a program P of 30 K own SLOC.
Program P depends on a library L that has 2 K SLOC.
You view the ratio of 2/30 as meaning that L is "tiny stuff".

Will you then be complaining about licensors if you can
get a closed source license for L from them, but at a
price that you find not to be in proportion with 2/30?

Will your complaint have a legal basis?

[georg bauhaus]

Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash...@futureapps.de> wrote:
>
>
> [Summary of how the GPL restricts freeloading snipped.]

You may have other reasons to avoid GPL.
In this case, ask the licensors.

[onox]

On May 29, 9:58 am, Gustaf Thorslund <gus...@thorslund.org> wrote:
> On 2012-05-28 20:34, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> > Only for liars and politicians. Everyone else agrees what freedom means.
>
> Then lets find out who of us is the liar and who is the politician.

There's a difference? ;)

[Kulin]

Thomas L�cke <tho...@12boo.net> wrote:

> On 05/28/2012 08:34 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> > Freedom means the absence of restriction, and it doesn't matter that serfs
> > and GPL fanbois have participated in Stallman's obscene twisting of the
> > concept for his nefarious purposes.
>
>
> In what part of human life does freedom equal a complete absence of
> restrictions? It might mean an absence of undue restrictions, but that
> is surely not the same as no restrictions at all.

There is freedom and then there is everything else. It's an ideal. Really,
calling GPL encumbered software "free" is silly at best and at worst a dirty
lie.

> Freedom is being able to do what you want, until your actions infringe
> on other peoples freedom.

That is not the definition of freedom. That is the definition of good
citizenship.

> Nobody is forcing you to use GPL software. You are free to use software
> released under licenses that are more in tune with your personal ideals.

I don't use anybody else's libraries or code in anything I write, except on
UNIX where I usually have to link against the libc. The discussion is
especially relevant on comp.lang.ada since GNAT, developed on U. S.
Government funds (ie. at public expense) was privatized by AdaCore and
the gcc-ada derives from that and I predict will eventually be all GPL.

> That is freedom for you. You should enjoy that, instead of trying to
> limit the freedom of others.

Agreed. Now explain how I am trying to limit the freedom of others? All I
have said is GPL is not "free software". Am I limiting your freedom by
speaking the truth? That's political correctness gone amok.

> The GPL serves its purpose, as do all the other open source licenses.

I don't agree. The GPL is not about software licensing. It's about socialist
policy and an agenda that any professional programmer would reject.

> And please stop with the name-calling. People are not liars simply
> because they don't agree with your definition of what freedom is.

Freedom is a word that is well-defined. Stallman is a damn liar for twisting
the definition completely out of reality and calling a viral, forcible open
source license a "free software" license. But because he is a self-described
Marxist and atheist, lying and propagandizing are legitimate tools for
him. If you want to be duped, or if you're a socialist and you don't believe
in private ownership and think everything a person does automatically
belongs to the government or the world, etc. that's your business.
However, I won't remain silent when people say GPL has anything to do with
freedom. That's a lie, and anyone who suggests otherwise is a liar.

[Nomen Nescio]

> It is stunning to see programmers who are used to formal,
> rational thinking, becoming irrational. ;-) ;-)

There's plenty of that going around!

> The *combination* of someone else's work and yours is not your own
> work!

Right!

> The resulting work is *not* the sole intellectual property
> of either contributor.

Right again! So, why does something think it's reasonable to suggest that
you have to open your source because he opened his source? That's going too
far. All that's reasonable is to say "if you use this you have to also
provide the source for it." The fact GPL infects anything that touches it is
wrong, and it's probably not legally enforceable.

> Respect the wishes of this someone else!

Right. I don't use GPL code because of this.

> If someone is more generous than GPL etc. would imply, it is
> their choice. They own the rights. And I think we are not to
> discuss their generosity, or accuse them of the lack thereof,
> if so perceived by us!

Right again, but as I said it only goes so far. It's one thing to give
something away, or share something, but quite another to give a virus
away. It's dishonest. And calling it "free software" is really quite
unsupportable.

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Tue, 29 May 2012 23:00:32 +0200, Kulin <rema...@reece.net.au> a écrit:
> I don't agree. The GPL is not about software licensing. It's about
> socialist

Please, stop with politic here. Further more, it makes many different
senses depending on the country you live in, and this Usenet is
international, not just an United‑State Usenet (french user talking here).

> Freedom is a word that is well-defined. Stallman is a damn liar for
> twisting the definition completely out of reality

Talking about twisting, I wonder if there is even an issue to twist
license issues when the effective issue is indeed about twisting with the
reality (as you named it), I mean disconnection between the real society
and a software world which look like to live in a vacuum (is that the
correct English expression for the french « vivre dans une bulle »?).

I feel many people run around the topic, but miss the real topic. Face it:
when do complains about GPL comes? Answer: when it disallow commercial
activities, and further more, states it's bad. Yes, I know officially GPL
does not disallow it, but every one know it disallow it in practice, and
comes with a culture which say so. If the GPL also came with something to
solve that paradox, there would be less complains, but it don't, indeed.

That's what I meant some days ago, and today as well, when I said the real
issue is culture. Here indeed, instead of solving a trouble, the GPL make
it worst. But that's not the GPL who created it. By the way, the license
is not what matters to people, its the price. Indeed, as the GPL said
“everything must allow redistribution at no charge”, it get a lot of
echoes and propagated with the help of that. But the same is here with
BSD. Release what you want under BSD license or *what ever license you
want*, this issue will still be the same, with people thinking things are
as much easily made as copied. In short, the GPL enforced that belief, but
did not originate that belief, it has a responsibility in the situation,
but is not the cause.

My assumption here is that people don't mind so much to provide their
source (potentially at extra cost) but minds about giving up everything
for free (as in free as in beer), while they may be other reasons where
one may wish to not release sources, to avoid modified versions to be
distributed or some others, but these are not the most common case.

Why not switch to “how to setup a commercial plan for XYZ application”
instead of going on with this topic which, I know it, will not give better
than what it already gave?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Tue, 29 May 2012 18:45:16 +0200, Thomas Løcke <tho...@12boo.net> a
écrit:

> On 05/28/2012 08:34 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> Freedom means the absence of restriction, and it doesn't matter that
>> serfs
>> and GPL fanbois have participated in Stallman's obscene twisting of the
>> concept for his nefarious purposes.
>
>
> In what part of human life does freedom equal a complete absence of
> restrictions? It might mean an absence of undue restrictions, but that
> is surely not the same as no restrictions at all.

Indeed, and any Ada programmer/designer should agree with that. Just like
Ada is all about restrictions to avoid typical errors and vicious traps,
freedom requires some rules to be viable (just like Ada helps to make
software more viable, thanks to its validity rules), the first of these
being to acknowledge other ones own right to freedom and own minimal
requirements to live decently.

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Tue, 29 May 2012 18:57:03 +0200, Georg Bauhaus
<rm.dash...@futureapps.de> a écrit:

> [Summary of how the GPL restricts freeloading snipped.]

Multiple times people here (at least two) referred to something named
“freeloading”. What is it exactly freeloading? The term unknown to me
(will search the web for it).

[Nomen Nescio]

Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57
)

<yannick...@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> Le Tue, 29 May 2012 10:23:40 +0200, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> a
> écrit:
> > No, Stallman is a self-affirmed Marxist atheist
> Either true or not, better avoid this kind of comment about politic and
> religion here. That's not the place for. Discussing licensing and licenses
> properties may be worth, but not that.

Well it's usenet and it's free so I can say whatever I believe and all this
needs to be said and on the record.

I feel it's relevant to remind people of Stallman's sick politics and
anti-religious philosophies because they are vital to understanding why lies
and propaganda are legitimate tools in his view. Eliminating the concepts of
private ownership and property rights are things he strongly desires, so he
redefines well-understood concepts like "freedom" to achieve those
ends. Many of his approaches are right out of the Stalin and Hitler
playbooks, such as repeating lies over and over again until people are
desensitized to the truth. If you read some of their writings and speeches
and compare them to Stallman's writings you would probably be shocked at the
similarities.

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Wed, 30 May 2012 00:48:50 +0200, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> a
écrit:
> [talks too far from software developing in Ada for comp.lang.ada]

No need to go this way. Everyone understood the point (even if not all
adhere too), and every one is able to search the web to make up its own
mind.

Feel free to release anything you wish under the license you want (you've
not lost your own freedom).

[Fritz Wuehler]

> I feel many people run around the topic, but miss the real topic. Face it:
> when do complains about GPL comes? Answer: when it disallow commercial
> activities, and further more, states it's bad. Yes, I know officially GPL
> does not disallow it, but every one know it disallow it in practice, and
> comes with a culture which say so. If the GPL also came with something to
> solve that paradox, there would be less complains, but it don't, indeed.

I don't care what the terms of the GPL license are since I don't use GPL
code. I would like an unemcumbered copy of gcc-Ada just for principle.

I do object to the lie of calling GPL a "free software license" since it is
the least free and most intentionally misleading software license that
exists today.

I can't answer your question, because my issue with GPL and Stallman and the
so-called FSF is because they're evil, lying Marxists. I have no objection
to them setting whatever terms they like, it's theirs to do that with.

Just don't call it freedom.

> By the way, the license is not what matters to people, its the
> price.

You said a mouthful there buddy! Stallman's propaganda and agenda is only
successful because most people want something for nothing.

No thanks, Stallman can keep his code and the virus it comes with.

[Zhu Qun-Ying]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 14:35:04 -0700, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:

>> It is stunning to see programmers who are used to formal,
>> rational thinking, becoming irrational. ;-) ;-)
>
> There's plenty of that going around!
>
>> The *combination* of someone else's work and yours is not your own
>> work!
>
> Right!
>
>> The resulting work is *not* the sole intellectual property
>> of either contributor.
>
> Right again! So, why does something think it's reasonable to suggest that
> you have to open your source because he opened his source? That's going
> too
> far. All that's reasonable is to say "if you use this you have to also
> provide the source for it." The fact GPL infects anything that touches
> it is
> wrong, and it's probably not legally enforceable.
>

Then don't use it. If your code deadly need other's code to function,
then respect their choice of license. You are using your definition of
freedom to overtake other's thought. I think RMS's GPL is more realistic
to respect the author's will. He is not forcing you to use GPL for your
code, he is not forcing you to use GPL code neither.

>> Respect the wishes of this someone else!
>
> Right. I don't use GPL code because of this.

Good for you then.

>
>> If someone is more generous than GPL etc. would imply, it is
>> their choice. They own the rights. And I think we are not to
>> discuss their generosity, or accuse them of the lack thereof,
>> if so perceived by us!
>
> Right again, but as I said it only goes so far. It's one thing to give
> something away, or share something, but quite another to give a virus
> away. It's dishonest. And calling it "free software" is really quite
> unsupportable.
>

That is your definition of "free software", it is perfectly acceptable to
lots of people, including me to call GPL software as free software.

[Kulin]

> I feel many people run around the topic, but miss the real topic. Face it:
> when do complains about GPL comes? Answer: when it disallow commercial
> activities, and further more, states it's bad. Yes, I know officially GPL
> does not disallow it, but every one know it disallow it in practice, and
> comes with a culture which say so. If the GPL also came with something to
> solve that paradox, there would be less complains, but it don't, indeed.

I don't care what the terms of the GPL license are since I don't use GPL
code. I would like an unemcumbered copy of gcc-Ada just for principle.

I do object to the lie of calling GPL a "free software license" since it is
the least free and most intentionally misleading software license that
exists today.

I can't answer your question, because my issue with GPL and Stallman and the
so-called FSF is because they're evil, lying Marxists. I have no objection
to them setting whatever terms they like, it's theirs to do that with.

Just don't call it freedom.

> By the way, the license is not what matters to people, its the
> price.

[Nomen Nescio]

"Zhu Qun-Ying" <zhu.q...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 29 May 2012 14:35:04 -0700, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> >> It is stunning to see programmers who are used to formal,
> >> rational thinking, becoming irrational. ;-) ;-)
> >
> > There's plenty of that going around!
> >
> >> The *combination* of someone else's work and yours is not your own
> >> work!
> >
> > Right!
> >
> >> The resulting work is *not* the sole intellectual property
> >> of either contributor.
> >
> > Right again! So, why does something think it's reasonable to suggest that
> > you have to open your source because he opened his source? That's going
> > too
> > far. All that's reasonable is to say "if you use this you have to also
> > provide the source for it." The fact GPL infects anything that touches
> > it is
> > wrong, and it's probably not legally enforceable.
> >
>
> Then don't use it.

I don't use it. Try reading the thread instead of adding to the noise level ;-)

> If your code deadly need other's code to function, then respect their
> choice of license.

I don't need anybody's code to function except the OS and on UNIX, libc (I
usually use syscalls..)

> You are using your definition of freedom to overtake other's thought.

Let me see if I understand this. A guy from China is lecturing on the topic
of freedom? It's well-understood where I come from. The Land of the FREE and
the Home of the Brave. At least it was when I grew up...

> I think RMS's GPL is more realistic to respect the author's will. He is
> not forcing you to use GPL for your code, he is not forcing you to use GPL
> code neither.

You keep missing the point. The point is the GPL is not a free software
license. It's a viral, forcible open source license.

> That is your definition of "free software", it is perfectly acceptable to
> lots of people, including me to call GPL software as free software.

But you're damn liars, and usually socialists and atheists, so you have no
compunction about lying, propagandizing, expropriating private property,
bullying, and killing people who get in your way, since you have no moral
compass.

Have a nice day!

[Gustaf Thorslund]

I understand that's a joke from your side onox and I suppose we could
both laugh at it as joke where we live on this earth. But to give it a
serious answer too I'd say they are two different things. Depending on
where you live on the planet the intersection may be smaller or bigger.

I'm kind of disappointed Nomen Nescio have not yet helped me with what
categories we should both belong to. But maybe Kulin Fritz Wuehler have
not yet found a suitable alias to use when trying to insult me (but I'd
probably just ignore Void Null anyway).

I would also like to thank everyone who try to keep the discussion on a
moderate level even if you disagree. Sometimes it's just better to
respect each others disagreement, especially if they don't really need
to have any impact on you.

I've not tried the Fuzzy machine learning framework. But it sounds
interesting. Wonder if it could help me figure out if there can be parks
with free peeing that's free from peeing. I'd expect at least someone in
this thread to say it's possible to find them, but I've still got my doubts.

If I look out my window it's dark and if I look at my clock it's late.
I'm sure someone (with your view of the world at the moment) will
disagree, but you'll probably not get too upset if I'd decide to sleep
for awhile now (even if it would be noon from your point of view).

[Zhu Qun-Ying]

If you keep saying people disagree with you as liars, you need to serious
consider yourself to see a psychiatrist.
Where am I coming from has nothing to do with this. I know what's
freedom, and in this little earth, the only place that has total freedom
that you could do what ever you want is in your dream.


--
Qun-Ying

[BrianG]

On 05/29/2012 12:11 PM, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
> Le Tue, 29 May 2012 11:38:02 +0200, Georg Bauhaus
> <rm.dash...@futureapps.de> a écrit:
>> It is stunning to see programmers who are used to formal,
>> rational thinking, becoming irrational. ;-) ;-)
>>
>> The *combination* of someone else's work and yours is not your own
>> work!
> On the opposite, that's rational and practical. There is an issue with
> proper measure of things here. Think about the extreme case of a single
> line of GPL in a million lines… you see?

If that single line is sooooo important, and you can't create your own
line(s) that do(es) the equivalent, without qualifying as a "derived
work", then there is no problem with that "restriction". If that
someone-else's work were not GPL, but proprietary, there would be no
"your work" to be worried about.

Complaining that that someone-else didn't release their work as Public
Domain, or with a license you like better is irrelevant. It is their
decision to make. If they didn't like giving you more rights to their
work (which should be clear since such options do exist), then the only
option would be to have given you less rights.

If you ever actually find yourself in such a circumstance, you could
always contact the copyright holder(s) (if that's possible), and ask for
additional rights. I don't believe there's anything in the GPL (or
other licenses) that prevents the copyright holder from using other
terms in other circumstances.

--
---
BrianG
000
@[Google's email domain]
.com

[BrianG]

On 05/29/2012 05:00 PM, Kulin wrote:

> Thomas Lųcke<tho...@12boo.net> wrote:
>
>> On 05/28/2012 08:34 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> The GPL serves its purpose, as do all the other open source licenses.
>
> I don't agree. The GPL is not about software licensing. It's about socialist
> policy and an agenda that any professional programmer would reject.
>

Somehow, I suspect the "professional programmers" at AdaCore, RedHat,
Canonical, etc. would disagree with your "any".

I have no opinion on this subject, but I _am_ a "professional
programmer". I don't recall getting the memo telling me that this must
be my opinion, nor the memo informing me that you were appointed to
provide me with my opinion.

> ... and anyone who suggests otherwise is a liar.

Unless you can prove conscious intent, that statement is patently false
(no matter what your point was, or what others actually said/suggested).

[BrianG]

On 05/28/2012 09:59 PM, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
> Le Mon, 28 May 2012 19:42:54 +0200, Simon Wright <si...@pushface.org> a
> écrit:
>
>> Kulin <rema...@reece.net.au> writes:
>>
>>> I thought the GPL was about intellectual rights denial
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
> In one sense, this make sense.
>
> Say you create a fork of some library or application, covered by the
> GPL. You are forced to use the GPL to distribute it, or else, forced to
> not distribute it. That's that kind of denial of intellectual rights
> people complaining about the GPL typically means (I'm just guessing that
> was the same for him). Things are like you are not allowed to be the
> owner of your own work. That's why some people keep GPL far away from
> them (even a single line of GPL inside a million lines application would
> expose the case). Either they work on their own peace of work (even
> recreate what's GPL, if necessary), or on someone else work, only if the
> license does not deny their property and freedom with their *own work*.
>
You can do whatever you want with your *own work*. You cannot do that
with the work of **others**. When someone else gives you certain rights
to their work, you are bound to the limits of those rights. If you want
to mix your work and theirs, you either do so within the rights they
gave you, or you mix in such a way that preserves their rights (using
libraries, plug-ins, etc, that properly segregate their work from your,
according to the rights they gave you).

If you were to (somehow) incorporate some product or element from
Microsoft (from your local Joe's Software Shack) into your product,
would you expect the rights to do whatever you wanted with that "your
own work"? If you want functionality of Word, you recreate it yourself
(assuming they let you do that much without objecting); if you take
their code and incorporate it in your product (outside of the rights
they gave you), that's called stealing. There is no difference with
GPL, or any other license.

The only difference between the GPL and a typical proprietary license is
the GPL gives you the option to have additional rights and access -
assuming you agree to the terms delineated.

[darkestkhan]

Funny... I know some Chinese personally and talked with them and there is something interesting I learned - in Western World China is portrayed as country where you don't have any freedoms, mainly because it is `socialistic` [fyi Chinese government is technocratic] and people virtually can't speak, while in the West we can speak virtually anything...
FYI: they can't speak but they can DO while we can speak but can't do that much.

> > I think RMS's GPL is more realistic to respect the author's will. He is
> > not forcing you to use GPL for your code, he is not forcing you to use GPL
> > code neither.
>
> You keep missing the point. The point is the GPL is not a free software
> license. It's a viral, forcible open source license.
>

It does its jobs - it gives you all 4 freedoms of software freedom and effectively prohibits freeloading. It is good tool for this job, especially if you don't want to write code for freeloaders.

> > That is your definition of "free software", it is perfectly acceptable to
> > lots of people, including me to call GPL software as free software.
>
> But you're damn liars, and usually socialists and atheists, so you have no
> compunction about lying, propagandizing, expropriating private property,
> bullying, and killing people who get in your way, since you have no moral
> compass.
>
> Have a nice day!

Yeah, I'm atheist. But I'm not socialist - I'm a technocrat, and IMHO GPL does its job very well - gives a lot of rights to people while effectively prohibiting freeloading. And I don't see how lack of faith in any God or gods makes me immoral - just looking in the Bible we see `almighty, merciful and good` God killing people because they don't pray to him, ordering conquest of Canaan and other atrocities that shouldn't be done by any good or moral God. Similar things can be found in other religious texts. As I would advice reading Confucius and Buddha's teachings [I don't see how Zen can be qualified as religion - for me it is philosophy of life].

Could you stop using argunentum ad hominem ? It doesn't give strength to your argument, to the contrary - it is serious logical fallacy.

Have a nice day!

[darkestkhan]

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 9:00:32 PM UTC, Kulin wrote:
> [...]

> > And please stop with the name-calling. People are not liars simply
> > because they don't agree with your definition of what freedom is.
>

> Freedom is a word that is well-defined. [...]

Are you sure about this?
define:freedom in google.com seems to disagree:
free・dom
Noun
1. The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
2. Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.

Dictionary.reference.com lists 5 (!) definitions of freedom

thefreedictionary.com lists 11 definitions, among them:
3.a) Political independence.
4. Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition.
7. Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve.

And as we can see they aren't semantically identical - freedom is not well defined word, so you can't say that Stallman is twisting the meaning of word (especially that one of the synonyms of freedom is... license)

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Fri, 01 Jun 2012 20:25:50 +0200, darkestkhan <darke...@gmail.com> a
écrit:

On the contrary, you gave good reasons to ask Stallman to stop asserting
this word belong to him and the GPL, and ask him to acknowledge others are
not less legitimate to have their own claims on what “free” is.

[darkestkhan]

You mean like here
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses ?

MIT and BSD are free software licenses according to FSF so I don't see how "this word belongs to GPL".

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 07:43:10 +0200, darkestkhan <darke...@gmail.com> a
écrit:

> On Saturday, June 2, 2012 12:57:08 AM UTC, Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)

>> On the contrary, you gave good reasons to ask Stallman to stop asserting
>> this word belong to him and the GPL, and ask him to acknowledge others
>> are
>> not less legitimate to have their own claims on what “free” is.
>>
>> --
>> “Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
>> “Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
>> [1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University
>
> You mean like here
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses ?
>
> MIT and BSD are free software licenses according to FSF so I don't see
> how "this word belongs to GPL".

The tiny thing which hide the big one (sorry, don't know an English
equivalent for the french « l’arbre qui cache la forêt »). I meant in
practice and you can't get ride of it with a single quotation. Or else,
why complain when the doubt about the GPL is increasing and someone oppose
other licenses to it? I also keep in mind, to Stallman, the only
legitimate license, is ultimately the GPL, and anything outside the GPL is
an anomaly. Someone express it somewhere on the web, noticing how people
talk about XYZ GPL library, saying its the library of choice of any XYZ
application. Unfortunately, any GPL library is only OK for GPL
applications, so that cannot be the library of choice for any XYZ
application. This common shortcut shows a tendency to forget their is also
a world outside of the GPL, something the GPL preach intently forget. The
same about the meaning of “free”. Note that among all of the free licenses
this article quote, the GPL is the least compatible with others. You may
add an XYZ licensed (such as MIT or BSD) component into a GPL application,
but not the opposite, as the GPL force everything to be GPL. Is that the
GPL way to acknowledge other's legitimacy? (as a side note, funny to note
GPL is the most closed of the free licenses the article mentions, due to
its viral effect).

[Simon Wright]

"Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick...@yahoo.fr> writes:

> The tiny thing which hide the big one (sorry, don't know an English
> equivalent for the french « l’arbre qui cache la forêt »).

Being unable to see the wood for the trees? Doesn't quite fit in the
same grammatical position, though.

> I meant in
> practice and you can't get ride of it with a single quotation. Or
> else, why complain when the doubt about the GPL is increasing and
> someone oppose other licenses to it?

Normally when people get so inflamed about something it's to hide a
political agenda. At least the FSF's is out in the open.

Is there evidence for "the doubt about the GPL is increasing"?

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 10:06:23 +0200, Simon Wright <si...@pushface.org> a
écrit:

> Is there evidence for "the doubt about the GPL is increasing"?

Well, “increasing” may be misleading as it does not explicitly express an
amount by which. I should have said “visibly increasing” (enough to be
visible). I have a web connection at home since about 2005, and at that
time, there was near to no visible opposition to the GPL which was
glorified every where. Questioning seems more frequent to me since some
time (two or three years?). Some big enough examples I have in mind, is an
affair with WordPress themes designers, who suddenly was forced to release
their works under the GPL, after multiple years selling their works under
another license (someone lately noticed a trick implying they now had to
release their work under GPL). This case made some noise, as this themes
author made a living from it. Another one, is Aqsis (a RenderMan
processor), which migrated its license from GPL to BSD (the author said if
contributors don't agree, then their contributions will simply be removed
from Aqsis). There was a story about Perle and a dual licensing said to be
“the Perle way to undermine the GPL virus”. If you search the web for “GPL
is not free”, you will get a reasonable amount of results for that exact
sentence. From time to time, I see some other kinds of questioning,
sometime dealing with commercial activities (in fact impossible, and the
contradiction with what the FSF says leave people with a bad feeling),
sometime about whither or not the GPL really protects authors theft
(project hijacking and the like), and others. Either this was not their 5
to 6 years ago, or else I've missed it at that time, just to say I feel to
see more now than before.

To not talk also about miss-interpretations, when some people choose to
release under the GPL because they believe the GPL is “this and that”, and
is not, which is source of confusion, and confusion leads to
recriminations too.

Seems like the ancient God now looks like a simple guy among any others.

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 02.06.12 09:02, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:

> The tiny thing which hide the big one (sorry, don't know an English equivalent for the french « l’arbre qui cache la forêt »). I meant in practice and you can't get ride of it with a single quotation. Or else, why complain when the doubt about the GPL is increasing and someone oppose other licenses to it? I also keep in mind, to Stallman, the only legitimate license, is ultimately the GPL, and anything outside the GPL is an anomaly. Someone express it somewhere on the web, noticing how people talk about XYZ GPL library, saying its the library of choice of any XYZ application. Unfortunately, any GPL library is only OK for GPL applications, so that cannot be the library of choice for any XYZ application. This common shortcut shows a tendency to forget their is also a world outside of the GPL, something the GPL preach intently forget. The same about the meaning of “free”. Note that among all of the free licenses this article quote, the GPL is the least compatible with others.

> You may add an XYZ licensed (such as MIT or BSD) component into a GPL application, but not the opposite, as the GPL force everything to be GPL. Is that the GPL way to acknowledge other's legitimacy? (as a side note, funny to note GPL is the most closed of the free licenses the article mentions, due to its viral effect).
>

Valuations of either type of licenses, MIT/BSD or GPL, assume
fraudulent entrepreneurship. There is enough evidence that fraud
in business is a reasonable assumption.

Let product P be a work combined from Foreign_Source and Our_Source.
P is to be conveyed. In what follows, "theft" should also stand for
a violation of terms and conditions.

(1) Type MIT/BSD licenses enable closing the source of P and are used
to prevent theft of privately owned goods, namely theft of Our_Source.

(2) Type GPL licenses require keeping the source of P open and are used
to prevent theft of privately owned goods, namely that of Foreign_Source.

Type MIT/BSD emphasizes technical prevention of theft,
Type GPL emphasizes legal prevention of theft.

The difference is one of perspective (licensor - licensee).


Proof of (2) [GPL prevents theft of Foreign_Source]:

Law abiding entrepreneurs will not choose Type GPL Foreign_Source
(unless they can get special permission) if P should be conveyed
without source. Since they don't use Type GPL software, they don't
steal it. This shows that the prevention of theft of Foreign_Source
is effective IFF parties are law abiding.

A mere desire to include Foreign_Source under different terms and
conditions is not sufficient to warrant criticizing the licensors
for *their* *choice* just because you don't like it.

In any case, you can always ask the owners of Foreign_Source
for permission. I you just don't want to ask, this is suspiciously
different from what business people do.

Last but not least, I find it telling that the thread has little
to say in favor of licenses that will allow closed source, but that
cost money.

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 12:52:02 +0200, Georg Bauhaus
<rm.dash...@futureapps.de> a écrit:
>

> Valuations of either type of licenses, MIT/BSD or GPL, assume
> fraudulent entrepreneurship.

Hu?

> There is enough evidence that fraud
> in business is a reasonable assumption.

The following if under conditions I did not erroneously understood your
words. If the opposite, fix me.

That's the king of assumption (which indeed often come with the GPL
culture), which make some people look at this license with amusement.

Smalltalk: Some business are fraudulent, not all. Further more, the more
little your business is, the more you can't be fraudulent. To be
fraudulent, you have to be able to keep your customers captive, even if
they don't enjoy you; the kind of thing a small business is unlikely to be
able to.

> Let product P be a work combined from Foreign_Source and Our_Source.
> P is to be conveyed. In what follows, "theft" should also stand for
> a violation of terms and conditions.
>
> (1) Type MIT/BSD licenses enable closing the source of P and are used
> to prevent theft of privately owned goods, namely theft of Our_Source.
>
> (2) Type GPL licenses require keeping the source of P open and are used
> to prevent theft of privately owned goods, namely that of Foreign_Source.
>
> Type MIT/BSD emphasizes technical prevention of theft,
> Type GPL emphasizes legal prevention of theft.

On the average, I understand the same too, that's indeed a part of their
respective properties.

> The difference is one of perspective (licensor - licensee).
>
>
> Proof of (2) [GPL prevents theft of Foreign_Source]:
>
> Law abiding entrepreneurs will not choose Type GPL Foreign_Source
> (unless they can get special permission) if P should be conveyed
> without source. Since they don't use Type GPL software, they don't
> steal it. This shows that the prevention of theft of Foreign_Source
> is effective IFF parties are law abiding.

Yes

> A mere desire to include Foreign_Source under different terms and
> conditions is not sufficient to warrant criticizing the licensors
> for *their* *choice* just because you don't like it.

Yes, there's no excuse for that, but this leave enough room to discuss
licenses properties.

By the way, an opinion I forget to tell before: one of the property I
don't like with the GPL, is that it's tricky to me. A permissive license
may lack some precision, as long as it does not have too much
consequences. A restrictive license, has heavy consequences, and because
it has heavy consequences, it should be very precise and explicit.
Unfortunately, although its text is already rather long compared to
others, it is not to me. If I find a good starting point with another
message from this thread, I will make it an opportunity to ask for the
questions (lack of precision in the GPL) I have in mind. May be someone
here will have enough knowledge and experiences to suggest me answers.

> Last but not least, I find it telling that the thread has little
> to say in favor of licenses that will allow closed source, but that
> cost money.

As it happens to froggies from time to time, I could not clearly
understand this sentence (cheese and apologizes).

[darkestkhan]

On Saturday, June 2, 2012 10:25:56 AM UTC, Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne) wrote:
> Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 10:06:23 +0200, Simon Wright <si...@pushface.org> a
> écrit:
> > Is there evidence for "the doubt about the GPL is increasing"?
>
> Well, “increasing” may be misleading as it does not explicitly express an
> amount by which. I should have said “visibly increasing” (enough to be
> visible). I have a web connection at home since about 2005, and at that
> time, there was near to no visible opposition to the GPL which was
> glorified every where. Questioning seems more frequent to me since some
> time (two or three years?). Some big enough examples I have in mind, is an

> affair with WordPress themes designers [?], who suddenly was [?] forced to release

> their works under the GPL, after multiple years selling their works under
> another license (someone lately noticed a trick implying they now had to
> release their work under GPL). This case made some noise, as this themes
> author made a living from it.

So? He broke license in the first place so he should be publishing his work under GPL. On the other hand I don't see how he can't make living selling GPL'd themes - after all he isn't required to give them for free nor is he required to give sources to everyone [in fact he has to give them only to buyers]. And don't say that people would be sharing his work with everyone - after all GNAT Pro also is under GPL and we don't see many people sharing it.

> Another one, is Aqsis (a RenderMan
> processor), which migrated its license from GPL to BSD (the author said if
> contributors don't agree, then their contributions will simply be removed
> from Aqsis).

So? There is also Apache and OpenOffice... I don't see how is it relevant.
[on the other hand you have Altran Praxis and Spark]

> There was a story about Perle and a dual licensing said to be
> “the Perle way to undermine the GPL virus”.
> If you search the web for “GPL
> is not free”, you will get a reasonable amount of results for that exact
> sentence. From time to time, I see some other kinds of questioning,
> sometime dealing with commercial activities (in fact impossible, and the
> contradiction with what the FSF says leave people with a bad feeling),
> sometime about whither or not the GPL really protects authors theft
> (project hijacking and the like), and others. Either this was not their 5
> to 6 years ago, or else I've missed it at that time, just to say I feel to
> see more now than before.
>

Oh, it was - after searching for "gpl is not free" what I get in most search results is mostly from 2003 - 2008 : with many of it from Skype [they breached OpenMoko's license] and SCO [which was saying that GPL is unconstitutional].
It is comming back now because Apple is [and Microsoft is trying to] prohibiting sales of GPL licensed software in Apple Store.

> To not talk also about miss-interpretations, when some people choose to
> release under the GPL because they believe the GPL is “this and that”, and
> is not, which is source of confusion, and confusion leads to
> recriminations too.
>

If they release something about license they misinterpreted it is their sole responsibility. But if they are the sole proprietors of work then they can relicense.

[darkestkhan]

On Saturday, June 2, 2012 11:48:58 AM UTC, Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne) wrote:
> Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 12:52:02 +0200, Georg Bauhaus
> <rm.dash...@futureapps.de> a écrit:
> >
> > Valuations of either type of licenses, MIT/BSD or GPL, assume
> > fraudulent entrepreneurship.
> Hu?
>
> > There is enough evidence that fraud
> > in business is a reasonable assumption.
>
> The following if under conditions I did not erroneously understood your
> words. If the opposite, fix me.
>
> That's the king of assumption (which indeed often come with the GPL
> culture), which make some people look at this license with amusement.
>
> Smalltalk: Some business are fraudulent, not all. Further more, the more
> little your business is, the more you can't be fraudulent. To be
> fraudulent, you have to be able to keep your customers captive, even if
> they don't enjoy you; the kind of thing a small business is unlikely to be
> able to.
>

define:fraudulent
1. Obtained, done by, or involving deception, esp. criminal deception: "the fraudulent copying of American software".
2. Unjustifiably claiming or being credited with particular accomplishments or qualities.
define:fraud
1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

So no - you don't "have to be able to keep your customers captive" in order to be fraudulent. Taking someone's else work and saying it is your work is fraud, no matter how small business you are (in fact you don't even have to be business for this to be fraud). Taking some work and not complying with license is also fraud.

> > Last but not least, I find it telling that the thread has little
> > to say in favor of licenses that will allow closed source, but that
> > cost money.
>
> As it happens to froggies from time to time, I could not clearly
> understand this sentence (cheese and apologizes).
>

I think he meant licenses that permit inclusion in closed source software if you pay for this. Something like Oracle's doing with OpenOffice - selling it under different license [though in case of OpenOffice it was slightly different - Oracle was the sole proprietor and as such it could change license from GPL].

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 15:59:43 +0200, darkestkhan <darke...@gmail.com> a
écrit:

> On Saturday, June 2, 2012 10:25:56 AM UTC, Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)
> wrote:
>> Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 10:06:23 +0200, Simon Wright <si...@pushface.org> a
>> écrit:
>> > Is there evidence for "the doubt about the GPL is increasing"?
>>
>> Well, “increasing” may be misleading as it does not explicitly express
>> an
>> amount by which. I should have said “visibly increasing” (enough to be
>> visible). I have a web connection at home since about 2005, and at that
>> time, there was near to no visible opposition to the GPL which was
>> glorified every where. Questioning seems more frequent to me since some
>> time (two or three years?). Some big enough examples I have in mind, is
>> an
>> affair with WordPress themes designers [?], who suddenly was [?] forced
>> to release
>> their works under the GPL, after multiple years selling their works
>> under
>> another license (someone lately noticed a trick implying they now had to
>> release their work under GPL). This case made some noise, as this themes
>> author made a living from it.
>
> So? He broke license in the first place so he should be publishing his
> work under GPL.

Designing themes, is graphic designer work. Prior to that case, I've heard
of skinning or theming contaminated by the license of the application it
applies to. That an example of how tricky the GPL is. If my mind is right,
because the themes was attached via PHP hook, then this was considered to
be linking, and thus considered to be GPLed. There were not programmer,
but graphic designer, their did not released programs, but styles,
nevertheless, the GPL applied, late, as a bad surprise (and that's not the
only bad trick of the GPL contaminating effect, will give another
potential issue later in this post). You can release a picture created
with GIMP with under license you want, but you cannot release a WordPress
theme, under any license you want.

> On the other hand I don't see how he can't make living selling GPL'd
> themes - after all he isn't required to give them for free nor is he
> required to give sources to everyone [in fact he has to give them only
> to buyers]. And don't say that people would be sharing his work with
> everyone -

What happens as soon after, is that themes were made available in multiple
place for free download. They were no more sells for many of theme, for
whom the story ended here. A few other could go one, because they had
clients who were unlikely to give away their graphic identity to every
one. No the case of most theme users though.

> after all GNAT Pro also is under GPL and we don't see many people
> sharing it.

The kind of customers is not the same. Comparison is irrelevant.

>> Another one, is Aqsis (a RenderMan
>> processor), which migrated its license from GPL to BSD (the author said
>> if
>> contributors don't agree, then their contributions will simply be
>> removed
>> from Aqsis).
>
> So? There is also Apache and OpenOffice... I don't see how is it
> relevant.
> [on the other hand you have Altran Praxis and Spark]
>
>> There was a story about Perle and a dual licensing said to be
>> “the Perle way to undermine the GPL virus”.
>> If you search the web for “GPL
>> is not free”, you will get a reasonable amount of results for that exact
>> sentence. From time to time, I see some other kinds of questioning,
>> sometime dealing with commercial activities (in fact impossible, and the
>> contradiction with what the FSF says leave people with a bad feeling),
>> sometime about whither or not the GPL really protects authors theft
>> (project hijacking and the like), and others. Either this was not their
>> 5
>> to 6 years ago, or else I've missed it at that time, just to say I feel
>> to
>> see more now than before.
>>

Apache migrated from GPL to Apache License? I though it was Apache License
since the beginning. Anyway, if that still additional example of case
where at least GPL seems to cause some troubles, enough to switch to
something else.

> Oh, it was - after searching for "gpl is not free" what I get in most
> search results is mostly from 2003 - 2008 : with many of it from Skype
> [they breached OpenMoko's license] and SCO [which was saying that GPL is
> unconstitutional].
> It is comming back now because Apple is [and Microsoft is trying to]
> prohibiting sales of GPL licensed software in Apple Store.
>
>> To not talk also about miss-interpretations, when some people choose to
>> release under the GPL because they believe the GPL is “this and that”,
>> and
>> is not, which is source of confusion, and confusion leads to
>> recriminations too.
>>
>
> If they release something about license they misinterpreted it is their
> sole responsibility. But if they are the sole proprietors of work then
> they can relicense.

Not that simple; misinterpretation and undecidable interpretations, are
easily there.

(and here is the opportunity for some of the questions I mentioned in
reply to George)

When a license is that much misunderstood, I believe the license must be
fixed, and the communication about it, too. One of them, while not the
most common one, is the belief that GPL is simple and that the “P” of
“Public” implies “Public Domain”. This one is not due to the license terms
(otherwise if you read its text, you easily see the contrary of both
point), but due to quick assertions made to promote it. Still an issue
around it.

Another one, is an example I encountered with an application named K3D.
That's a GPLed 3D modeler. It has a core application, which can load
plugins. As a 3D modeler, it lacks animation capabilities, which make it
useless to many artist. As their seemed to be a demand for that, I though
“why not make a plugin for standard shape‑key animation?” (not for free as
in beer). I tell about this to the author to inquire about his/her
opinion, and was surprisingly tell if the application is GPL, then plugins
must be GPL too. How strange, in the same vein, you have VST plugins in
MIDI sequencers. GPL fan surprisingly don't hesitate to use proprietary
VST (but still free as in beer, you guess) in GPLed MIDI sequencers. So,
seems the interpretation depends on the actual interest (guess the mess if
such a fuzzy interpretation ever happens in a court or dispute). This one
is probably due to the phantasm to force every one to the GPL by any mean
(or else people using non‑GPL VST in a GPL MIDI sequencer are wrong), and
make me think about two others issue in the same area (which follows).

A funny one. Say a library L1 is GPLed. You link an application
dynamically to L1, so this application must be GPL. Now say you have
another library L2, providing the same interface and service, which is not
GPL (example: one you created yourself). Now what about the application
which dynamically link to either L1 or L2? Is will be GPL or not depending
on runtime circumstance? So it may be GPL or not, in an undetermined state
à‑la quantum mechanic, which will be know only at runtime? Or else, does
it depends on the interface declaration used to compile the application?
It this was compiled with interface specification from the GPLed library
then it is GPL and if it was compiled with th interface specification or
the non‑GPL one, then it is not GPL? Obviously GPL goes too far and cause
potential paradoxes, when it requires contamination to be applicable via
dynamic linking.

The above one in turn makes me think about another one. Is the interface
specification, part of the source which force an application to be GPL? I
guess GPL fan will promptly say “obviously”, but so, is the GPL a kind of
software patent? Could surely not be defended in any court.

Still in the area of linking, not an interpretation issue, but something
which shows how much GPL can lead to stupid things, still due to its
attempt to force contamination via dynamic linking. If a library L is GPL
and an application A dynamically links to L, it must be GPL. Now imagine
two intermediate layer LI1 and LI2. Imagine there is between LI1 and LI2,
a communication via a pipe, and LI1 and LI2 are both
serializer/unserializer, to that A makes a request via LI1, which
serialize the request into a textual representation, send it to LI2 via a
pipe like stdout/stdin, which in turn unserialize it to finally call L,
and the same for the return path. Imagine LI2 is GPLed, but not A and LI1.
You achieve the same as a dynamic linking, just less efficiently. To say a
thing is a derivative work of another thing, depending on the kind of API
is uses to use it, seems stupid to me.

The above trick leads to Affero GPL: would the interpretation of the above
case be different with Affero GPL? This one would be a lot challenging to
me.

Notice all of these are all due to the phantasm to be able to force every
one to GPL by any mean (the viral effect, a virus you could caught even in
a sterile room, or the deny of others already mentioned); this lead to
wobbly issues. Compared to that, most proprietary license are a piece of
cake to figure out. There is a lack of precision for all of this things in
the GPL, and trying to make the GPL answer some of these cases, would
probably make it even more complicated, leading to new issues, probably.

Yes, BSD and some others are much simpler and less playing tricky things.

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 18:31:33 +0200, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
<yannick...@yahoo.fr> a écrit:

> Designing themes, is graphic designer work. Prior to that case, I've
> heard of

Please, read “I've never heard of” (missed the negation).

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 16:44:59 +0200, darkestkhan <darke...@gmail.com> a
écrit:

> define:fraudulent
> 1. Obtained, done by, or involving deception, esp. criminal deception:
> "the fraudulent copying of American software".
> 2. Unjustifiably claiming or being credited with particular
> accomplishments or qualities.
> define:fraud
> 1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or
> personal gain.
> 2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by
> unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or
> qualities.
>
> So no - you don't "have to be able to keep your customers captive" in
> order to be fraudulent. Taking someone's else work and saying it is your
> work is fraud, no matter how small business you are (in fact you don't
> even have to be business for this to be fraud). Taking some work and not
> complying with license is also fraud.

That does not change anything to the suspicion raised by an assertion like:

> There is enough evidence that fraud
> in business is a reasonable assumption.

(providing I did not erroneously understand, or else, example reasonable
assumption would be welcome)

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 02.06.12 18:51, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
> Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 16:44:59 +0200, darkestkhan <darke...@gmail.com> a écrit:
>> define:fraudulent
>> 1. Obtained, done by, or involving deception, esp. criminal deception: "the fraudulent copying of American software".
>> 2. Unjustifiably claiming or being credited with particular accomplishments or qualities.
>> define:fraud
>> 1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
>> 2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.
>>
>> So no - you don't "have to be able to keep your customers captive" in order to be fraudulent. Taking someone's else work and saying it is your work is fraud, no matter how small business you are (in fact you don't even have to be business for this to be fraud). Taking some work and not complying with license is also fraud.
>
> That does not change anything to the suspicion raised by an assertion like:
>> There is enough evidence that fraud
>> in business is a reasonable assumption.
>
> (providing I did not erroneously understand, or else, example reasonable assumption would be welcome)

How do you choose a license based on your expectations of
others' behavior?

Investigating authorities regularly publish their findings; the
notion of white-collar crime is substantiated; it's in the news[*];
sometimes staff gets fired for fraud; sometimes they get away with
fraud; sometimes they have made sure there is no legal or illegal
way to catch them (clever? objectionable?); some run away---the
novelists' stereotype is to places like Cayman Islands (would you be
surprised to hear that major investors in some well know companies
in the USA and in Europe work via a chain of agents at least one of
which operates from Cayman Islands?); some will be sued. So, fraud in
business is on file.

Fraud is not unknown, neither are the motive that drive it.
Fraud is one reason why we have licenses in the first place,
because not everyone will act according to standards like
fairness. Not everyone accepts that fairness is a standard,
for a start. Some are actually being payed for finding
legal ways around fairness. (Just a fact, not a value judgment.)
In some cases this behavior creates what is known as a scandal.

So, the above includes some of the cases of fraud in business
and they are only the known ones.

Suppose you want to license some software that you have written.
You consider the future behavior of those who will use your software
in their products. What will they likely do? Will they follow
the license's terms and conditions? What do you want
them to do? Do you care what they do? What are they like?

So what license do you choose if you care about them using
your software?

Very likely, you can start licensing considerations from basic,
statistically verifiable findings about persons. Like this
one: the fraction of persons who will act lawfully regardless of
whether other not others are watching them.


__
[*] Have you heard about Bernie Madoff?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff

[Simon Wright]

"Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick...@yahoo.fr> writes:

Well, I chased this round and I have to say I'm surprised.

WordPress claim (eg [1]) that the fact that themes (the PHP part) are
executed in the same way as WordPress's own themes and call up the same
Wordpress libraries makes them derivatives and hence subject to
the GPL.

The Software Freedom Law Center[2] says, quoted in [3],

The PHP elements, taken together, are clearly derivative of WordPress
code. The template is loaded via the include() function. Its contents
are combined with the WordPress code in memory to be processed by PHP
along with (and completely indistinguishable from) the rest of
WordPress. The PHP code consists largely of calls to WordPress
functions and sparse, minimal logic to control which WordPress
functions are accessed and how many times they will be called. They
are derivative of WordPress because every part of them is determined
by the content of the WordPress functions they call. As works of
authorship, they are designed only to be combined with WordPress into
a larger work.

This strikes me as extremely contentious, and at first I wasn't willing
to believe it.

However, further research shows that a WordPress theme is an example of
plug-in use as discussed in the GPL FAQ [4]:

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function
calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a
single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the
main program and the plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be
released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and
that the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are
distributed.

I must say that this statement is a lot clearer than the Software
Freedom Law Center's. You might well be able to test its applicability
in a court, since it's not part of the License, isn't even called up
by it, and is admittedly only a statement of the FSF's belief.

[1] http://goo.gl/c0tWG
[2] http://www.softwarefreedom.org/
[3] http://wordpress.org/news/2009/07/themes-are-gpl-too/
[4] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins

[darkestkhan]

I would have to read more about installing themes in WordPress but to my best knowledge pure graphics can't be contaminated by GPL.

To be more precise it is Oracle that changed license from GPL to Apache and in case of Apache Foundation the issue was that it wasn't Apache License [just like FSF works mainly with GPL and with few exceptions under LGPL]

It is problem we can't solve (also there is no public domain in many countries in Europe) if people don't read licenses and assume just from name alone.
(there was story about some internet service which in license agreements put something akin to "We will have all rights to do anything with your soul we want to" [it is called "cyrograf" in Polish (it has broader meaning in Polish than English "deal with the devil")].

> Another one, is an example I encountered with an application named K3D.
> That's a GPLed 3D modeler. It has a core application, which can load
> plugins. As a 3D modeler, it lacks animation capabilities, which make it
> useless to many artist. As their seemed to be a demand for that, I though

> "why not make a plugin for standard shape-key animation?" (not for free as

> in beer). I tell about this to the author to inquire about his/her
> opinion, and was surprisingly tell if the application is GPL, then plugins
> must be GPL too. How strange, in the same vein, you have VST plugins in
> MIDI sequencers. GPL fan surprisingly don't hesitate to use proprietary
> VST (but still free as in beer, you guess) in GPLed MIDI sequencers. So,
> seems the interpretation depends on the actual interest (guess the mess if
> such a fuzzy interpretation ever happens in a court or dispute). This one
> is probably due to the phantasm to force every one to the GPL by any mean

> (or else people using non-GPL VST in a GPL MIDI sequencer are wrong), and

> make me think about two others issue in the same area (which follows).
>

This is called hypocrisy and it is illegal to distribute GPL software linked to some non-GPL compatible license.

> A funny one. Say a library L1 is GPLed. You link an application
> dynamically to L1, so this application must be GPL. Now say you have
> another library L2, providing the same interface and service, which is not
> GPL (example: one you created yourself). Now what about the application
> which dynamically link to either L1 or L2? Is will be GPL or not depending
> on runtime circumstance? So it may be GPL or not, in an undetermined state

> à-la quantum mechanic, which will be know only at runtime? Or else, does

> it depends on the interface declaration used to compile the application?
> It this was compiled with interface specification from the GPLed library
> then it is GPL and if it was compiled with th interface specification or

> the non-GPL one, then it is not GPL? Obviously GPL goes too far and cause

> potential paradoxes, when it requires contamination to be applicable via
> dynamic linking.
>

:D API aren't copyrightable. If you distribute [this one is important - if someone else will link it and distribute it then he is breaking license] software linked against GPL then it must be under GPL compatible license.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120531172522459
There was similar case in EU Court and it was also judged that API's aren't copyrightable.
One can write readline implementation with exactly the smae header as one from FSF under BSD license.

> The above one in turn makes me think about another one. Is the interface
> specification, part of the source which force an application to be GPL? I
> guess GPL fan will promptly say "obviously", but so, is the GPL a kind of
> software patent? Could surely not be defended in any court.
>

IMHO everything in .h (or public part of .ads) files is specification (API if you prefer).

> Still in the area of linking, not an interpretation issue, but something
> which shows how much GPL can lead to stupid things, still due to its
> attempt to force contamination via dynamic linking. If a library L is GPL
> and an application A dynamically links to L, it must be GPL. Now imagine
> two intermediate layer LI1 and LI2. Imagine there is between LI1 and LI2,
> a communication via a pipe, and LI1 and LI2 are both
> serializer/unserializer, to that A makes a request via LI1, which
> serialize the request into a textual representation, send it to LI2 via a
> pipe like stdout/stdin, which in turn unserialize it to finally call L,
> and the same for the return path. Imagine LI2 is GPLed, but not A and LI1.
> You achieve the same as a dynamic linking, just less efficiently. To say a
> thing is a derivative work of another thing, depending on the kind of API
> is uses to use it, seems stupid to me.
>
> The above trick leads to Affero GPL: would the interpretation of the above
> case be different with Affero GPL? This one would be a lot challenging to
> me.
>

This is probably a reason why AGPL is not that much used - it is problematic to interpret. And IMHO libraries should be written under LGPL (or GPL with Library Runtime Exception).

> Notice all of these are all due to the phantasm to be able to force every
> one to GPL by any mean (the viral effect, a virus you could caught even in
> a sterile room, or the deny of others already mentioned); this lead to
> wobbly issues. Compared to that, most proprietary license are a piece of
> cake to figure out. There is a lack of precision for all of this things in
> the GPL, and trying to make the GPL answer some of these cases, would
> probably make it even more complicated, leading to new issues, probably.
>
> Yes, BSD and some others are much simpler and less playing tricky things.
>

Though GPL is not viral - it is protective/invasive (:D) [but I'm not so sure about case of AGPL]. Maybe it is time to write new license similar in spirit to LGPL (and when doing it one should use formal semantics to avoid as many problems as possible).

[darkestkhan]

On Saturday, June 2, 2012 4:51:02 PM UTC, Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne) wrote:
> That does not change anything to the suspicion raised by an assertion like:
> > There is enough evidence that fraud
> > in business is a reasonable assumption.
>
> (providing I did not erroneously understand, or else, example reasonable
> assumption would be welcome)
>

Example of fraud in software industry:
http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl-violations.org#Fortinet

And if someone would make much more detailed searching I bet he would find much more frauds (with example being K3D and VST plugin which also is fraud)

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 21:30:13 +0200, Simon Wright <si...@pushface.org> a
écrit:

Thanks for all of the details. So my mind was about OK, it was indeed due
to PHP (theme author were still graphic designers, not programmers, and by
the way, this could lead to another questions, but there are so many, I
won't go on with all).

Side note: my apologizes for the numerous grammar mistakes in the post
your replied to (I only noticed when it was too late, after message
already sent).

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 21:31:55 +0200, darkestkhan <darke...@gmail.com> a
écrit:

> I would have to read more about installing themes in WordPress but to my
> best knowledge pure graphics can't be contaminated by GPL.

Simon gave an in‑deep replies about it, just “above” your message.

> It is problem we can't solve (also there is no public domain in many
> countries in Europe) if people don't read licenses and assume just from
> name alone.

Yes

>> Another one, is an example I encountered with an application named K3D.
>> That's a GPLed 3D modeler. It has a core application, which can load
>> plugins. As a 3D modeler, it lacks animation capabilities, which make it
>> useless to many artist. As their seemed to be a demand for that, I
>> though
>> "why not make a plugin for standard shape-key animation?" (not for free
>> as
>> in beer). I tell about this to the author to inquire about his/her
>> opinion, and was surprisingly tell if the application is GPL, then
>> plugins
>> must be GPL too. How strange, in the same vein, you have VST plugins in
>> MIDI sequencers. GPL fan surprisingly don't hesitate to use proprietary
>> VST (but still free as in beer, you guess) in GPLed MIDI sequencers. So,
>> seems the interpretation depends on the actual interest (guess the mess
>> if
>> such a fuzzy interpretation ever happens in a court or dispute). This
>> one
>> is probably due to the phantasm to force every one to the GPL by any
>> mean
>> (or else people using non-GPL VST in a GPL MIDI sequencer are wrong),
>> and
>> make me think about two others issue in the same area (which follows).
>>
>
> This is called hypocrisy and it is illegal to distribute GPL software
> linked to some non-GPL compatible license.

Interesting. But where does the GPL license requires users to not use
non‑GPL plugins with GPL applications? As far as I know, GPL wordings is
all about authors of derivative works and redistribution, and there is
nothing I believe about any obligations made to simple users. So either
you are wrong with that reply, either the GPL is messy.

OK (so GPL is not acting a software patent according to you). Still
remains a part of the question: say a program *dynamically* link to a
library, which may be either GPL or non‑GPL, depending on the execution
context: is the program, GPL, non‑GPL, undetermined?. It's clear in the
case of static linking, but it's not with dynamic linking. Contamination
by dynamic linking is my opinion, an error of the GPL design. And above
that, imagine a world where every one will do the same… GPL software could
not even be allowed on Windows, if MS has a similar license as the GPL, so
GPL look working, just because it is the only one of the like, and when
one permit itself something he/she has to hope others will not do the
same, there is a trouble somewhere, honestly.

>> The above one in turn makes me think about another one. Is the interface
>> specification, part of the source which force an application to be GPL?
>> I
>> guess GPL fan will promptly say "obviously", but so, is the GPL a kind
>> of
>> software patent? Could surely not be defended in any court.
>>
>
> IMHO everything in .h (or public part of .ads) files is specification
> (API if you prefer).

So there is no infringement if as an example, I get a GPL C API
structure's component's size and placement (just an example).

Talking about API, I would like to know what the GPL says about the
particular case of syscalls. Is using a syscall instruction, an interrupt
call (while interrupt are not any more used on Linux I believe),
considered linking? Don't wast your time to chase for it, I will do later
(just to know, I don't have any issue with it).

> Though GPL is not viral - it is protective/invasive (:D) [but I'm not so
> sure about case of AGPL]. Maybe it is time to write new license similar
> in spirit to LGPL (and when doing it one should use formal semantics to
> avoid as many problems as possible).

Well, choose the words you wish to say it (:D), GPL has still to pray for
others to not do the same, otherwise if a platform ever launch its own
similar license, this will automatically disallow any GPL application to
run on this platform (with the exception of something similar to LGPL,
which would not expose this trouble).

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 21:40:50 +0200, darkestkhan <darke...@gmail.com> a
écrit:

> Example of fraud in software industry:
> http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html

So now I understand why D‑Link is so reluctant to provide required
documentations to make Linux drivers for their modems (I will have a hard
time for long again).

> And if someone would make much more detailed searching I bet he would
> find much more frauds (with example being K3D and VST plugin which also
> is fraud)

In the case of non‑GPL VST loaded into GPL MIDI sequencers, this is not
the industry responsibility, that's the one of the GPLed sequencer users.

About K3D, don't need to search, I immediately gave up with the idea to
create the mentioned plugin.

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 02.06.12 22:49, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
> Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 21:31:55 +0200, darkestkhan <darke...@gmail.com> a écrit:
>> I would have to read more about installing themes in WordPress but to my best knowledge pure graphics can't be contaminated by GPL.
>
> Simon gave an in‑deep replies about it, just “above” your message.

Actually, the comments address reification of a theme. not copyright
of a design. Example: can you (not) include Apple's logo in a web
theme of yours because some web site code uses (GPL) MIT/BSD? Or
because you wrote it in Postscript and have a license from Adobe?

Legal implications of either publishing a work or including a work
etc. are not summarized by any license, however short or long. When law
matters, paying a lawyer seems more adequate than relying on, or
spreading FUD.

[Simon Wright]

darkestkhan <darke...@gmail.com> writes:

> Example of fraud in software industry:
> http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl-violations.org#Fortinet

Not _fraud_, surely!

From Wikipedia, "In criminal law, a fraud is an intentional deception
made for personal gain or to damage another individual".

These are copyright violations (and I doubt very much that they are
criminal offences).

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 09:14:15 +0100, Simon Wright wrote:

> These are copyright violations (and I doubt very much that they are
> criminal offences).

OK, it became completely off-topic. Does not the Kim Dotcom/Megaupload case
prove otherwise? State is always ready to criminalize anything (e.g.
hate-speech laws, copyright infringement laws, DMCA etc) unless checked.

--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

[Nomen Nescio]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mai...@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 09:14:15 +0100, Simon Wright wrote:
>
> > These are copyright violations (and I doubt very much that they are
> > criminal offences).
>
> OK, it became completely off-topic. Does not the Kim Dotcom/Megaupload case
> prove otherwise? State is always ready to criminalize anything (e.g.
> hate-speech laws, copyright infringement laws, DMCA etc) unless checked.

Correct and well said.

OTOH trying to sue Chinese (or even Japanese) companies for copyright
infringement is not considered an effective utilisation of most legal
departments ;-) Although the USA is turning into a bigger and bigger bully
every day there are still some things they find difficult to do.

[Simon Wright]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mai...@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 09:14:15 +0100, Simon Wright wrote:
>
>> These are copyright violations (and I doubt very much that they are
>> criminal offences).
>
> OK, it became completely off-topic. Does not the Kim Dotcom/Megaupload case
> prove otherwise? State is always ready to criminalize anything (e.g.
> hate-speech laws, copyright infringement laws, DMCA etc) unless checked.

OK, I take that back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Criminal_liability