Tessa To-do & c.
Matthew Wild
Basically house-keeping, we need to:
- Add COPYING file to the SVN trunk containing the GPLv2 text
- Add the GPL notice at the head of all source files: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC4
- Add README, which can basically be a short paragraph that basically points to our various sites, and the MUC. (btw, http://tessa.googlecode.com/ now redirects to our project page, it's an easier URL to remember)
- Add INSTALL file, with *brief* instructions and a link to http://code.google.com/p/tessa/wiki/InstallingFromSVN
Before anyone asks, we're with GPLv2 at least until I have read GPLv3 :) Better v2 than none at all.
So, any takers? (and any more small tasks I missed?)
Matthew.
PS. Oh, I remember Miranda IM added to the GPL license, to allow closed-source plugins to be used. Should we do this too?
Paul
> Before anyone asks, we're with GPLv2 at least until I have read GPLv3 :)
> Better v2 than none at all.
We should all read the GPLv3 and discuss about it. Keep me posted.
> PS. Oh, I remember Miranda IM added to the GPL license, to allow
> closed-source plugins to be used. Should we do this too?
I vote for no closed-source plugins to be allowed. Slight chances of
my opinion to change.
Matthew Wild
On 19 Jul, 14:23, "Matthew Wild" <mwi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Before anyone asks, we're with GPLv2 at least until I have read GPLv3 :)
> Better v2 than none at all.
We should all read the GPLv3 and discuss about it. Keep me posted.
Agreed. Does anyone else already have opinions on it?
> PS. Oh, I remember Miranda IM added to the GPL license, to allow
> closed-source plugins to be used. Should we do this too?
I vote for no closed-source plugins to be allowed. Slight chances of
my opinion to change.
Semi-agreed :)
(Now go to bed ;) )
Matthew.
Paul
GPLv3! I believe in _total_ freedom to modify the OpenSource software
that I use or have been distributed. It makes me **mad** to think that
someone can restrict the things I can do with the OpenSource software
I use. Of course, as long as I don't distribute my modified version,
because if I do, I am forced to release the code under the same
license. This is somewhat complicated if you don't read the license,
but my point is that of before, I am pro+ restricting Tivoization.
* Patent deals like Novell-Micro$oft == BAD and GPLv3 will turn that
against them and it will protect you from them and future attempts at
patent lawsuits and payments, **if** you use GPLv3 licensed programs.
* "Software patents are a vicious and absurd system that puts all
software developers in danger of being sued by companies they have
never heard of, as well as by all the megacorporations in the field.
Large programs typically combine thousands of ideas, so it is no
surprise if they implement ideas covered by hundreds of patents.
Megacorporations collect thousands of patents, and use those patents
to bully smaller developers. Patents already obstruct free software
development." -> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html
* http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
The License states many more things that I've briefly read but v3 is
only an enhancement and we should use it. The only thing I'm not
positive about is permitting object code to be used in this project.
So I vote no for that.
We should discuss every paragraph of the license in a conference so we
can work on smaller pieces and tell our opinions.
We can later conclude the advantages of us using v3 instead of v2 and
vice versa, and the reason why this program should be licensed in one
or the other version of the license.
Waqas
should discuss it in detail.
I think closed source plugins should be allowed. I would like to know
if the GPL would by default restrict to using only GPL plugins, or
plugins under other open source licenses as well. Restricting to only
open source plugins might lead to us not being able to use existing
non-open source plugins and code from other applications. Interfacing
with other apps might also need more work. I don't see a benefit of
this restriction. We should discuss on this too.
Tivoization: I don't think TiVo is evil. They make a commercial
product and their business model is based on partnerships. And if
people were legally allowed to modify the TiVos, TiVo wouldn't exist.
(Note that you can modify the TiVo software all you like and install
it on other systems, but you can't legally install it back into the
TiVo hardware).
Paul: In one place you say "I believe in _total_ freedom ..." and then
you don't want anyone to have the freedom to write closed source
plugins? :)
If its all about freedom, doesn't the BSD license give more freedom
than the GPL? xD
Waqas.
Paul-Sebastian Manole
> I have not read v3. Should probably do so. And I agree with Paul: we
> should discuss it in detail.
>
Yes, I hope I won't miss that day.
> I think closed source plugins should be allowed. I would like to know
> if the GPL would by default restrict to using only GPL plugins, or
> plugins under other open source licenses as well. Restricting to only
> open source plugins might lead to us not being able to use existing
> non-open source plugins and code from other applications. Interfacing
> with other apps might also need more work. I don't see a benefit of
> this restriction. We should discuss on this too.
>
Yes we should discuss this too. IIRC, you can include close source licensed
parts (under copyright or other licenses, as long as that license doesn't
require you to change your program's license to that license if you use that
closed source part). But I'm hoping we don't allow closed source plugins. If
enterprises want to use Tessa and want to develop their plugins, fine. But I
think we should distribute that type of plugins or parts. Let them distribute
them. :)
> Tivoization: I don't think TiVo is evil. They make a commercial
> product and their business model is based on partnerships. And if
> people were legally allowed to modify the TiVos, TiVo wouldn't exist.
> (Note that you can modify the TiVo software all you like and install
> it on other systems, but you can't legally install it back into the
> TiVo hardware).
There should be better ways to make money :D
>
> Paul: In one place you say "I believe in _total_ freedom ..." and then
> you don't want anyone to have the freedom to write closed source
> plugins? :)
> If its all about freedom, doesn't the BSD license give more freedom
> than the GPL? xD
What I said was: "I believe in _total_ freedom to modify the OpenSource
software that I use or have been distributed."
I'll forgive you for this mistake. :)
What I meant was that I believe I should have *no* restriction whatsoever to
how I can modify the software I have been distributed by ANYONE, be it a
commercial party, OpenSource party, or anyone else. And thanks to GPLv3, now
I can be free of that restriction.
Restricting TiVo in GPLv3 is good. Imagine all those /evil/ companies out
there that practically *steal* free software, add their modification in, sell
it or give it for free to customers, it doesn't matter, then they restrict
your right to remove/disable/touch their modification to the software, but
then they make money out of this by using their modification to the software,
like for example: delivering content specific ads and other type of
advertising, or spyware. OSS and Spyware sitting at the same table don't seem
right. It makes me /mad/ to think about it. (by mad I mean ...
infuriated! :P)
Maybe I'm being to idealistic, please excuse me, but if v3 can make my dreams
come true, I'll love it!
>
> Waqas.
Paul
wrote:
> enterprises want to use Tessa and want to develop their plugins, fine. But I
> think we should distribute that type of plugins or parts. Let them distribute
> them. :)
Sorry for my typo, I meant "we shouldn't". :)