GUI With Ruby

Ruby
81

On 3/13/07, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 06:02:27AM +0900, Robert D. wrote:

Right now I see that this really goes to your heart, I appreciate and
respect people who speak out loudly what they feel.

I’m sure you’d appreciate and respect me quite a bit, right up to the
point where you got tired of it. I’ve never been one to give way to
what I know to be wrong (though some might say my “knowing” is
incorrect).
But I do appreciate you, I only feel that I have said enough for what
I know for now.
rather than simply silence it.
Nothing to add here :slight_smile:

I sometimes find myself as opposed to the viewpoints of anti-FSF guys,
because too often they’re really kind of anti-FLOSS in general.
Hopefully that’s not the sort of person you have available to you at
work.
This person might be, it is quite a young guy, but that gives me
insperation, I have to check some facts.

I think the only reason I do not take such strong POV anymore is that
I have been bitten too often by the B/W paradigm. I want to learn more
about the Shades of Gray (hi James ;).

For me that was a very good thread (can you hear the violins? :wink:
sorry if I made you angry with my direct approach.

You didn’t. I appreciate it when someone offers a different perspective
on my own opinions, as long as that perspective doesn’t become
repetitive and obstinate rather than thoughtful and well-reasoned.

Than everything is fine :slight_smile: I do not want to repeat myself (DRY in a
different sense;)

–
CCD CopyWrite Chad P. [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
“It’s just incredible that a trillion-synapse computer could actually
spend Saturday afternoon watching a football game.” - Marvin Minsky

Cheers
Robert

82

On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 06:02:27AM +0900, Robert D. wrote:

Right now I see that this really goes to your heart, I appreciate and
respect people who speak out loudly what they feel.

I’m sure you’d appreciate and respect me quite a bit, right up to the
point where you got tired of it. I’ve never been one to give way to
what I know to be wrong (though some might say my “knowing” is
incorrect).

I will take a brake now, it is not fair anyway two against one, that
is Rick & Robert against Chad.

I don’t mind so much. I’m often in a minority position in such debates,
because it’s usually only where I agree with the minority that I see a
real need to speak up. When I’m in the majority, I tend to want to read
the opposing viewpoint for ideas that may have escaped my analysis,
rather than simply silence it.

I still feel that the GPL can be the right thing, especially for Ruby
code, which is source anyway. When it comes to Linuxen there are many
potential problems.

I will come back to you OL when/if I have learnt more about it. We
have a very anti-FSF guy in the office I will have some good talks
with him and then do my research.

I sometimes find myself as opposed to the viewpoints of anti-FSF guys,
because too often they’re really kind of anti-FLOSS in general.
Hopefully that’s not the sort of person you have available to you at
work.

For me that was a very good thread (can you hear the violins? :wink:
sorry if I made you angry with my direct approach.

You didn’t. I appreciate it when someone offers a different perspective
on my own opinions, as long as that perspective doesn’t become
repetitive and obstinate rather than thoughtful and well-reasoned.

83

On 3/13/07, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 06:48:27AM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:

On 3/13/07, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 11:03:19PM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:

On 3/12/07, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:31:23AM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:

On 3/11/07, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:

able to download the software and GPL text as a single download, then
As a general-purpose “license for all things open source”, however, I
have pretty distinct issues with it (as I’m sure you’re aware by now).

Have you actually read the GPL in its entirety? You seem to think
that I can’t download and run a GPL program without being forced to
distribute source code. The GPL distinguishes between using a GPL
licensed program and re-distributing it in original or modified form.
Here’s what it says:

“Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the
Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.”

And FSF has been careful to license tools like GCC and Bison to allow
their use to develop non-free software.

The provisions of the GPL which you seem to have issue with only come
into play when you re-distribute the code, or a derivative work. In
the case of redistributing code you got elsewhere, it just means that
you can’t strip out the GPL license or references to it in the code.
The analogy is that you can’t ethically distribute a copy of a book
which omits the copyright statement and expect to be free from
copyright infringement claims by the copyright holder. In fact, in
the case of a book, the lack of a license to redistribute means that
distributing copies of the book WITH or without the copyright
statement is infringement of the copyright holders rights.

I don’t see how this is ex post facto. You had the agreement when you
decided to create the derivative work. And it’s not a contract, it’s
a license granted by the copyright holder(s). It’s what allows you to
use the software to create derivative works. This is explained
clearly in section 5 of the GPL.

wireless routers.

You may have to point out in exacting detail how the GPL was a critical
factor in ensuring that a specific good result came about, and how that
result was in fact better than all likely alternative results if it
wasn’t GPLed software in the first place.

As for the first part of that, the FSF forced a large company Cisco in
this case, to make the software avaiable under the terms of the GPL.
The result is that I and many others are running much improved code on
our wireless router. I feel no obligation to explore all likely
alternative results.

saw off your arm = ???
saw off your arm = spend hundreds or thousands of dollars maintaining
source archives with redundant backups over a period of no less than
three years after last distribution of a binary

Or burn a CD or two, save them in a safe place, and offer to provide
copies at your cost of copying the CD and sending them a copy at their
request.

I wasn’t actually objecting to anything, I was trying to answer your
question about LiveCDs by pointing out that the GPL doesn’t require
bundling source code, which seemed to be your implication.

My point was that the GPL requires either of:

  1. bundling source code
  2. maintaining source archives for long periods

. . . in most cases.

Which is why I prefer to use software licensed under the GPL.

The conflation to which I referred was yours, not the GPL’s.
Well, here’s the complete thread

Chad said:

How do you feel about people having a (legally protected) right to
distribute Linux LiveCDs without having to push several CDs full of
source code on the recipients at the same time?

Rick replied:

That’s not requred by the GPL, the requirement is that if you
distribute such a live CD, you need to make the source used to create
it available. You don’t need to deliver it concurrently.

Chad continues:

There’s a difference between downloading software with the source
available, then later finding that the source for that exact version of
the binary went away, and downloading software when no source is
available. I don’t believe that conflating the two situations helps
clear up the legal ramifications of the situation at all.

Rick replies:

So stop conflating them, the GPL doesn’t.

The only things I see being conflated here are the requirements to
distribute binary and source together, and that wasn’t done by me,
my friend.

And the GPL is not about making software free as in beer, it’s about
making software free as in freedom.

. . . and my objection is that it grants greater “freedom” to software
than to people in possession of software, all else being equal. I never
objected to a failure to make software “free as in beer” to acquire.

No, it give freedom to people to use the software without restriction,
the freedom to redistribute it unaltered (without removing the
copyrights and license so the rights are extended to the recipients),
the freedom to make and use derivative works which include the
software in whole or in part, and the freedom to distribute those
derivative works.

Now as they say, with freedom comes responsibility, and when you
exercise that last freedom you have some responsibilities spelled out
in the license. This doesn’t have to entail large resources, keeping
a few CDs and duplicating them on demand, charging for the expense of
duplication and mailing is enough to satisfy that responsibility. For
a larger project, it’s quite likely though that the infrastructure to
provide source from a version control system already exists for the
projects purposes.

The real responsibility is not to be sloppy with your source code
control.

the same, barring explicit contractual agreements.
I think that you are greatly exaggerating the cost of source
distribution, particularly as a delta to the source code control which
any responsible project would and should exercise. I also think you
ignore the rights of the authors of software to ensure that their
contributions are used in a way consistent with their wishes.

And in the case of the GPL there is an explicit agreement, spelled out
in the GPL and triggered when one re-distributes the software, or
distributes a derivative work. And the requirement to supply source
code only comes in for derivative work. Re-distributing unchanged GPL
software, in it’s entirety simply extends the originator’s
responsibility to provide source to whoever you gave the copy to. In
other words the third party can’t come to you for the source, he/she
has to go to the originator.

No, the GPL doesn’t qualify as an explicit contractual agreement,
because the agreement part of that is only implicit.

Chad, I think we’ve run this into the ground. I’ll leave it to others
to decide for themselves who understands what.

I’m getting tired of repeating myself, which, as an advocate of DRY
bothers me.

Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/

84

On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 06:49:07PM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:

On 3/13/07, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 06:48:27AM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:

On 3/13/07, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 11:03:19PM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:

On 3/12/07, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:

Have you actually read the GPL in its entirety? You seem to think
that I can’t download and run a GPL program without being forced to
distribute source code. The GPL distinguishes between using a GPL
licensed program and re-distributing it in original or modified form.

Have you actually read what I’ve been saying? You seem to think I’ve
said that you can’t download and run a GPL program without being forced
to distribute source code.

In short, yes: I’ve read the GPL. I am not that straw man over there.
Nor is my argument that straw man over there. Thanks for playing.

I’ll ignore the rest of what you said about this subject, since it’s all
predicated on that one gross error in interpretation of what I’ve said.

to community based software, like OpenWRT, for that and other similar
our wireless router. I feel no obligation to explore all likely
alternative results.

That’s fun, 'cause without exploring likely alternative results you
cannot really make a credible case for the outcome being better with the
GPL than with some other license.

bactine = distribute source?

saw off your arm = spend hundreds or thousands of dollars maintaining
source archives with redundant backups over a period of no less than
three years after last distribution of a binary

Or burn a CD or two, save them in a safe place, and offer to provide
copies at your cost of copying the CD and sending them a copy at their
request.

Have you heard of delamination (for example)? Do you really think there
will never come a time when someone takes someone else to court for
failing to take “good faith”, but exceedingly expensive, measures to
guarantee source code availability?

. . . in most cases.

Which is why I prefer to use software licensed under the GPL.

I prefer to use software that I can distribute as, and when, I see fit,
without having to worry about covering my fourth point of contact
legally. I prefer “Oh, it’s BSD? Okay, I’m safe!” over “Oh, it’s GPL?
Damn. Do I have source for this exact version of the binary? Am I a
first-generation redistributor, or do I need to maintain archives? How
much is this going to cost me?”

realize that I don’t even understand what that statement means.
Rick replied:

Rick replies:

So stop conflating them, the GPL doesn’t.

The only things I see being conflated here are the requirements to
distribute binary and source together, and that wasn’t done by me,
my friend.

That’s not the complete thread. There was more context before that.

copyrights and license so the rights are extended to the recipients),
the freedom to make and use derivative works which include the
software in whole or in part, and the freedom to distribute those
derivative works.

That’s funny. If you ignore my statements, they go away.

It strips away the freedom to dispose of it as you see fit, unless you
only see fit to dispose of it by:

A) using it but never letting anyone else have a copy
B) giving it to someone, but only if (s)he wants the source too
C) giving it to someone, but maintaining an archive of source code

What if I just have a binary lying around, someone asks for a copy, and
I want to give it to him? What if it’s an obsolete binary, the original
project is unfindable, and I didn’t happen to save the source code in
the first place? I guess I just have to tell him “No, sorry, I’m
legally prevented from giving it to you because I didn’t think far
enough ahead to archive the source.” Are you really trying to tell me
that’s not an effect of the GPL’s terms?

Now as they say, with freedom comes responsibility, and when you
exercise that last freedom you have some responsibilities spelled out
in the license. This doesn’t have to entail large resources, keeping
a few CDs and duplicating them on demand, charging for the expense of
duplication and mailing is enough to satisfy that responsibility. For
a larger project, it’s quite likely though that the infrastructure to
provide source from a version control system already exists for the
projects purposes.

If you force someone to comply with your notion of a proper
responsibility, then it’s not responsibility, and the attendant state is
not freedom. Suddenly, it’s just liability and privilege.

The real responsibility is not to be sloppy with your source code control.

No . . . that’s the “real” requirement of liability. Responsibility
would involve not being sloppy with your source code without having a
gun to your head.

I think that you are greatly exaggerating the cost of source
distribution, particularly as a delta to the source code control which
any responsible project would and should exercise. I also think you
ignore the rights of the authors of software to ensure that their
contributions are used in a way consistent with their wishes.

Considering I haven’t laid out a price schedule in any concrete terms, I
think your claim that I’m exaggerating costs is kind of specious.

I also think that once you give away or sell something, it is no
longer yours and you no longer have a right, as author or otherwise, to
dictate how others dispose of it. Period. If you want to maintain
control of it, keep it in your possession. Otherwise, recognize that
giving up possession (without explicit contractual agreements) should be
synonymous with giving up control.

And in the case of the GPL there is an explicit agreement, spelled out
in the GPL and triggered when one re-distributes the software, or
distributes a derivative work. And the requirement to supply source
code only comes in for derivative work. Re-distributing unchanged GPL
software, in it’s entirety simply extends the originator’s
responsibility to provide source to whoever you gave the copy to. In
other words the third party can’t come to you for the source, he/she
has to go to the originator.

There’s a difference between explicitly defined terms and an explicit
agreement. The idea that someone agrees to the GPL is almost always
implicit – you don’t actually know someone agreed to it in any
meaningful sense. All you know is that the terms of the GPL are
available to that person to peruse, unless you sit there and watch him
or her sign on a dotted line. That would be an explicit agreement.

It boggles my mind that you can say that, then quote these words back at
me:

85

On Mar 13, 11:31 pm, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 06:48:27AM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:

When this was discovered, pressure on LinkSys to honor their license
under the GPL led to the release of the source code which led in turn
to community based software, like OpenWRT, for that and other similar
wireless routers.

You may have to point out in exacting detail how the GPL was a critical
factor in ensuring that a specific good result came about, and how that
result was in fact better than all likely alternative results if it
wasn’t GPLed software in the first place.

The release of the Linksys router source code was a direct reaction to
the discovering of GPL violations. The original URL for the source
code was http://www.linksys.com/support/gpl.asp… that speaks
volumes, doesn’t it?

86

On 14 Mar 2007, at 10:27, Chad P. wrote:

I also think that once you give away or sell something, it is no
longer yours and you no longer have a right, as author or
otherwise, to
dictate how others dispose of it. Period. If you want to maintain
control of it, keep it in your possession. Otherwise, recognize that
giving up possession (without explicit contractual agreements)
should be
synonymous with giving up control.

Which if course is the main point of contention between the BSD and
GPL camps. If I were to release code under BSD it would ensure I
received recognition for the effort involved in writing it, if I
released under GPL it would allow me to control how distributors and
derivators used the code. The former is essentially a gift to the
community (in the same way as a named Hospital Wing) whilst the
latter is more akin to a feudal patent - only one where the
obligation is measured in source code distribution and resubmission.

Of course I’m not sure Richard Stallman would wish to be described as
architect of a system of feudal governance, but that’s a discussion
for another day ;p

What this all boils down to at core is this: both BSD and GPL folks
are good, decent people. BSD folks like to give gifts to the
individual developer whilst GPL folks prefer to give their gifts to
the community of end-users - without the former the world would have
a lot fewer clever developers, and without the latter we’d all be
stuck with proprietary tools of dubious provenance.

Which of the two groups any one of us falls in at any given time
surely depends on what we’re hoping to achieve with our current project?

Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains

raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason

87

Chad P. wrote:

Have you heard of delamination (for example)?
Yes actually. It’s never ever happened to me. Not worth worrying about
IMO.

88

Ellie,

What this all boils down to at core is this: both BSD and GPL folks are
good, decent people. BSD folks like to give gifts to the individual
developer whilst GPL folks prefer to give their gifts to the community
of end-users

Thanks. This discussion, which I hadn’t been following but
just read, was crystallized for me by your thoughtful message.

Here I am, awake again at 2AM, trying to decide whether I made
the right choice in zlib for what (I hope) will be a significant
contribution to both developers and society in general on a new
project - being torn because I want it free, so at least all the
Ruby community can use it, but because I want a share in some of
the financial benefits others may gain from it.

I’ve always released things under BSD-style licenses, because I
think that if a gift is given, it should be free of obligation
of any significance, i.e. more than mere acknowledgment. I’m
releasing code in Ruby, and I’m happy if that code gets used
without any other obligations.

However, in this case, I think it’s quite likely to get cloned
into other languages, and some of those clones will be sold in
their own right, and get used as “proprietary tools of dubious
provenance” that cost both the developer and the end-user… a
lot. If that’s going to happen, I want a slice. Perhaps I really
need a patent with some free rights… but I hate that idea too.

Bit of a quandary really… but your message helped. Is there
a license that allows free use and extension of an item, but
restricts other derivations?

Clifford H…

89

On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 10:22:30PM +0900, Eleanor McHugh wrote:

Which if course is the main point of contention between the BSD and
GPL camps. If I were to release code under BSD it would ensure I
received recognition for the effort involved in writing it, if I
released under GPL it would allow me to control how distributors and
derivators used the code. The former is essentially a gift to the
community (in the same way as a named Hospital Wing) whilst the
latter is more akin to a feudal patent - only one where the
obligation is measured in source code distribution and resubmission.

Oooh . . . “feudal patent” is an interesting turn of phrase. Is that
original, or did you run across it somewhere else? I’m curious.

If it’s your original material – may I quote you with your blessing?

Of course I’m not sure Richard Stallman would wish to be described as
architect of a system of feudal governance, but that’s a discussion
for another day ;p

I’m sure he wouldn’t.

What this all boils down to at core is this: both BSD and GPL folks
are good, decent people. BSD folks like to give gifts to the
individual developer whilst GPL folks prefer to give their gifts to
the community of end-users - without the former the world would have
a lot fewer clever developers, and without the latter we’d all be
stuck with proprietary tools of dubious provenance.

I don’t entirely agree with this. The FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and
other BSD-based OS projects prove that one need not exercise legal
control over distribution to ensure that the open source code stays
publicly available. About 15,000 ports in the FreeBSD ports tree see to
that, at the very least.

Which of the two groups any one of us falls in at any given time
surely depends on what we’re hoping to achieve with our current project?

There’s some truth in that. Of course, what I’d really like to achieve
in a broader sense is something like a hereditary public domain – once
something goes into it, it doesn’t come back out.

90

On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 01:10:05AM +0900, Clifford H. wrote:

provenance" that cost both the developer and the end-user… a
lot. If that’s going to happen, I want a slice. Perhaps I really
need a patent with some free rights… but I hate that idea too.

Bit of a quandary really… but your message helped. Is there
a license that allows free use and extension of an item, but
restricts other derivations?

I’m not entirely sure what sort of restrictions you want, but you might
want to check out the options at Creative Commons. If you find
something pretty similar to your intent but not quite perfect, just
create a derivative license of your own. You may want to call them up
to verify that there aren’t any legal entanglements (I did that once,
when I wanted a license almost but not exactly like one of theirs), but
otherwise, Creative Commons might serve as a handy place to get ideas
for licensing.

You might also want to check out the OSI list of licenses to see if
anything gets close to what you want.

At first glance, it looks like you’re trying to restrict what cannot be
legally restricted (easily) while giving away rights that are more
easily restricted by law. As I said, though, I’m not entirely clear on
what you’re trying to accomplish.

91

On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 11:01:02PM +0900, Walter Prins wrote:

Chad P. wrote:

Have you heard of delamination (for example)?
Yes actually. It’s never ever happened to me. Not worth worrying about
IMO.

It has happened to two of my CDRs over the last few years, as far as
I’ve noticed. It may have happened to more, though I may not have
noticed because I haven’t gotten them out to check.

I don’t store important stuff on CDs any longer. At least, not only
on CDs.

92

On 3/14/07, Eleanor McHugh [email protected] wrote:

Which if course is the main point of contention between the BSD and
GPL camps. If I were to release code under BSD it would ensure I
received recognition for the effort involved in writing it, if I
released under GPL it would allow me to control how distributors and
derivators used the code. The former is essentially a gift to the
community (in the same way as a named Hospital Wing) whilst the
latter is more akin to a feudal patent - only one where the
obligation is measured in source code distribution and resubmission.

That is not so, you do not have to contribute there is no obligation.
There is only a rule what is so wrong with playing with the rules,
Rick do you hear me? You explain it soooo much better!

Of course I’m not sure Richard Stallman would wish to be described as
architect of a system of feudal governance, but that’s a discussion
for another day ;p
Nor would I :wink: but I really fail to see that analogy apply.

What this all boils down to at core is this: both BSD and GPL folks
are good, decent people. BSD folks like to give gifts to the
individual developer whilst GPL folks prefer to give their gifts to
the community of end-users - without the former the world would have
a lot fewer clever developers, and without the latter we’d all be
stuck with proprietary tools of dubious provenance.

Well that pretty much sums it up very nicely, does this mean that I
have not understand the feudal stuff above???

Which of the two groups any one of us falls in at any given time
surely depends on what we’re hoping to achieve with our current project?
Exactly I might chose BSD because I really do not want to “protect” my
source code or I might use GPL because I want :slight_smile:

Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains

raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason

Stack overvlow :wink:

Robert

93

On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 08:05:05PM +0900, [email protected] wrote:

wasn’t GPLed software in the first place.

The release of the Linksys router source code was a direct reaction to
the discovering of GPL violations. The original URL for the source
code was http://www.linksys.com/support/gpl.asp… that speaks
volumes, doesn’t it?

Not in a vacuum.

94

On 14 Mar 2007, at 21:44, Chad P. wrote:

Oooh . . . “feudal patent” is an interesting turn of phrase. Is that
original, or did you run across it somewhere else? I’m curious.

If it’s your original material – may I quote you with your blessing?

It’s probably original in this context, although it may have some
historical meaning that I’ve stomped all over: too much random
reading… Anyway feel free to reuse it elsewhere if you find it
useful - just don’t expect any tech support lol

publicly available. About 15,000 ports in the FreeBSD ports tree
see to
that, at the very least.

I agree with you that it is possible for large open-source
communities to thrive without the GPL, and as someone who doesn’t
choose to use it for my own projects I can’t really argue in its
favour. However it does appear to be a very effective tool for
keeping software free where third-parties have less than honourable
motives and the resources to act upon them.

Which of the two groups any one of us falls in at any given time
surely depends on what we’re hoping to achieve with our current
project?

There’s some truth in that. Of course, what I’d really like to
achieve
in a broader sense is something like a hereditary public domain –
once
something goes into it, it doesn’t come back out.

I’m not entirely sure how something can be legitimately removed from
the public domain once it’s in it. Which isn’t to say that people
can’t use public domain property in a proprietary manner, just that
that shouldn’t impact on the ability of other people to use it in the
public domain. However I’m probably being very naive about this.

Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains

raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason

95

On 14 Mar 2007, at 17:01, Robert D. wrote:

On 3/14/07, Eleanor McHugh [email protected] wrote:

What this all boils down to at core is this: both BSD and GPL folks
are good, decent people. BSD folks like to give gifts to the
individual developer whilst GPL folks prefer to give their gifts to
the community of end-users - without the former the world would have
a lot fewer clever developers, and without the latter we’d all be
stuck with proprietary tools of dubious provenance.

Well that pretty much sums it up very nicely, does this mean that I
have not understand the feudal stuff above???

Apparently not. My reference to feudalism was to the notion of a
social contract, which essentially is what the GPL defines, in which
rights derive from a single point of unquestionable moral authority
and everyone else has a clearly delineated role with attendant rights
and obligations. For the GPL’s purpose this is exactly how things
should be.

Which of the two groups any one of us falls in at any given time
surely depends on what we’re hoping to achieve with our current
project?
Exactly I might chose BSD because I really do not want to “protect” my
source code or I might use GPL because I want :slight_smile:

Yes, which is why it’s foolish of people to take a religious stance
one way or the other. Personally I’ve never used the GPL for a
project, but I don’t value my code that much. However if I was
working on something that would require months or years of costly
development the GPL might be an ideal way to have my cake and eat it:
open source so end-users can be confident my product is good, but a
license that keeps me in control.

raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason

Stack overvlow :wink:

Guess we’re still in beta then :wink:

Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains

raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason

96

From: “Chad P.” [email protected]

other BSD-based OS projects prove that one need not exercise legal
control over distribution to ensure that the open source code stays
publicly available. About 15,000 ports in the FreeBSD ports tree see to
that, at the very least.

I don’t see how that example would be applicable to the cases
of open source → closed source that are plaguing the Quake II
community these days, though.

Quake II is ten years old this year. id Software originally
released the “game” under a custom open-source license, while
keeping the “engine” private. (Many years later, all of the
source for the game+engine was released under the GPL.)

The original custom open source license under which the
customizable ‘game’ portion of the code was released, was not
very clear on whether the source had to be kept open for
modified/derivative works.

Personally, I think the GPL should be used sparingly. But in
the situation the Quake II community now finds itself in, I
definitely wish the ‘game’ source had been released under the
GPL from the very beginning.

What we have now, are numerous game modification modules in
binary form, long abandoned by their authors. Often we’re
simply unable to locate any current contact information for
the author to even ask whether they might now consider
releasing the source after all this time; but in other cases
the authors have simply refused to release the source to
their mod–and keep in mind their code is a derivative work
of the original open source code.

So now we have situations like the following, where not
only are there numerous little bugs in the mod code that
we would like to fix and features we’d like to improve upon;
but we have serious security vulnerabilities like the
following that are being discovered:

http://secur1ty.net/advisories/002-Multiple_Vulnerabilities_In_OSP_Tourney_For_Quake_II.txt

And the above is an example of a mod where the author has
reportedly flatly refused to open the source.

So we’re left with either enacting hacky workarounds to
mitigate the security flaws, or disabling key features of
the mod, or not allowing the mod to be played anymore at
all on our servers… or maybe hacking the binary–which
no-one has time for.

And yes–It’s just a game. So it’s not like the end of the
world or anything… But still. What a drag.

So anyway; I often avoid the GPL, but this is a very
non-hypothetical example where I’ve realized I really wish
the ‘game’ source had been released GPL from the very
beginning.

From my point of view, we have a very concrete example
of a case where after a decade, it’s become apparent that
a license that would have required the source stay open
would have been far preferable to one that allowed what
was originally open source to become closed source.

Regards,

Bill

97

On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 09:10:00AM +0900, Eleanor McHugh wrote:

On 14 Mar 2007, at 21:44, Chad P. wrote:

Oooh . . . “feudal patent” is an interesting turn of phrase. Is that
original, or did you run across it somewhere else? I’m curious.

If it’s your original material – may I quote you with your blessing?

It’s probably original in this context, although it may have some
historical meaning that I’ve stomped all over: too much random
reading… Anyway feel free to reuse it elsewhere if you find it
useful - just don’t expect any tech support lol

Excellent. Thanks.

control over distribution to ensure that the open source code stays
publicly available. About 15,000 ports in the FreeBSD ports tree
see to
that, at the very least.

I agree with you that it is possible for large open-source
communities to thrive without the GPL, and as someone who doesn’t
choose to use it for my own projects I can’t really argue in its
favour. However it does appear to be a very effective tool for
keeping software free where third-parties have less than honourable
motives and the resources to act upon them.

I guess part of that depends on your definition of “honorable” (sorry, I
tend to use USian spelling).

I’m not entirely sure how something can be legitimately removed from
the public domain once it’s in it. Which isn’t to say that people
can’t use public domain property in a proprietary manner, just that
that shouldn’t impact on the ability of other people to use it in the
public domain. However I’m probably being very naive about this.

Any time you create a derivative work, based on something in the public
domain, the derivative work is subject to copyright law – at least,
according to US law that’s the case. I used very casual terms to refer
to this process, as the original, unaltered work obviously is still in
the public domain – but something as simple as adding a preface can
create a non-public domain work.

98

From: “Chad P.” [email protected]

modified/derivative works.

One need not use the GPL to ensure that.

OK. Indeed, I should probably be clear that I don’t give
a fig about GPL qua GPL in this context. Any license that
could have ensured that derivative works of what was
originally an open source work, stayed open source, would
have–in my opinion–sufficed to alleviate the current
Quake II closed-source-mod situation.

So we’re left with either enacting hacky workarounds to
mitigate the security flaws, or disabling key features of
the mod, or not allowing the mod to be played anymore at
all on our servers… or maybe hacking the binary–which
no-one has time for.

The same line applies to that as to the GPL: you don’t have to use it if
you don’t want to abide by the license terms. Frankly, I think that’s a
sucky way to approach it, but I think it’s sucky whether you’re talking
about the GPL or unreleased copyrighted works.

I’m not sure whether I understand your point here, or not.
We have binaries that are essentially bit-rotting. The
difference between source availability and binary availability
here is all that seems germane to the particular situation I’m
trying to describe.

I can see how “you don’t have to use it” might apply (and
how GPL advocates might also use that argument in other
contexts), but my assessment of our current situation (in the
Q2 community) is that we would have been better served by a
license that ensured that derivative works of open source
works stayed open source. (Whatever license offered that
particular protection/limitation.)

From my point of view, we have a very concrete example
of a case where after a decade, it’s become apparent that
a license that would have required the source stay open
would have been far preferable to one that allowed what
was originally open source to become closed source.

Are you talking about the software being offered under an open source
license, or are you talking about the source being forced into public
accessibility by licensing? You aren’t exactly clear on that score.

Well; (I’m re-reading your earlier post about Linux LiveCD’s)…

To approach it from the inside-out, I’m saying that something
would have to have been different to avoid the situation we now
find ourselves in, where we have bit-rotting closed-source
binaries that are derivative works of an originally open source
release from the manufacturer.

So, I guess must be talking about, in some way, the source
being forced into public accessibility by licensing.

But: in practical terms, after a decade, source often seems to
be available (mirrored with the binary) in cases where the
authors of the mod originally chose to release the source with
their binary. The cases where we can’t find source code are
typically those where source was never released.

I realize things get sticky where one tries to place limits
on how long the mod author must provide a link to the source
code. And not everybody wants to download the source with
the binary. I think I understand your Linux LiveCD point;
(although I must admit, with terabyte hard drives these days
I’d think one could manage to keep every release around in
gzipped source form for three years…)

I dunno; I’m not suggesting a perfect solution exists; I’m
just saying we have real-life issues with closed source
binaries in the Q2 community. And these are issues I felt
the GPL (or some other license meeting the appropriate
criteria) would have solved/prevented.

Regards,

Bill

99

On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 11:45:31AM +0900, Bill K. wrote:

I don’t entirely agree with this. The FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and
released the “game” under a custom open-source license, while
keeping the “engine” private. (Many years later, all of the
source for the game+engine was released under the GPL.)

The original custom open source license under which the
customizable ‘game’ portion of the code was released, was not
very clear on whether the source had to be kept open for
modified/derivative works.

One need not use the GPL to ensure that.

So we’re left with either enacting hacky workarounds to
mitigate the security flaws, or disabling key features of
the mod, or not allowing the mod to be played anymore at
all on our servers… or maybe hacking the binary–which
no-one has time for.

The same line applies to that as to the GPL: you don’t have to use it if
you don’t want to abide by the license terms. Frankly, I think that’s a
sucky way to approach it, but I think it’s sucky whether you’re talking
about the GPL or unreleased copyrighted works.

From my point of view, we have a very concrete example
of a case where after a decade, it’s become apparent that
a license that would have required the source stay open
would have been far preferable to one that allowed what
was originally open source to become closed source.

Are you talking about the software being offered under an open source
license, or are you talking about the source being forced into public
accessibility by licensing? You aren’t exactly clear on that score.

100

On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 01:22:37PM +0900, Bill K. wrote:

you don’t want to abide by the license terms. Frankly, I think that’s a
how GPL advocates might also use that argument in other
contexts), but my assessment of our current situation (in the
Q2 community) is that we would have been better served by a
license that ensured that derivative works of open source
works stayed open source. (Whatever license offered that
particular protection/limitation.)

Sorry, I think I got a little snarky there. That was sort of a
general-purpose response to the commonly offered suggestion that the GPL
is the perfect license because if I don’t want to use the GPL I can just
avoid GPLed software when doing development. The same, of course,
applies to proprietary software – which makes it pretty obvious that
the choice to avoid a given license doesn’t make that license any better
or less flawed.

In other words, that wasn’t really a response to what you said.

(although I must admit, with terabyte hard drives these days
I’d think one could manage to keep every release around in
gzipped source form for three years…)

I dunno; I’m not suggesting a perfect solution exists; I’m
just saying we have real-life issues with closed source
binaries in the Q2 community. And these are issues I felt
the GPL (or some other license meeting the appropriate
criteria) would have solved/prevented.

So would any number of other possible solutions, such as reimplementing
the same stuff and releasing the source so that the closed source
version is obsolesced, refusing to use the closed source version in the
first place, a little bit more social pressure on the guy unwilling to
open the source, and so on. Part of the problem, I think, is that
people probably haven’t really considered all the possible reasons for
the source not being divulged. For instance, it may contain code that
was written by someone else, and the developer may have plagiarized it,
and not want anyone to know. Who knows what the reason is? There may
be a perfectly rational – if perfectly despicable – motivation
involved.

In any case, if you want something under an open source license badly
enough, and there’s no way to get the existing version’s source
released, the obvious solution seems to be to reimplement it – but do a
better job of it. One of the problems I have with the GPL is that it
reduces the ability of a reimplimentation under another license to
“catch on”, in large part thanks to the fame imparted on it by the
successes of some software projects that bear the GPL. The same
deterrents do not apply to closed-source software.