On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 06:15:40AM +0900, Michal S. wrote:
it is unenforcible technically and often even legally). To disallow
proprietary product which you make as proprietary as you like.
I’m always confused by what that’s supposed to hurt, all things
considered – so it tends to slip past my notice. Consider the two
options:
Someone modifies something, and doesn’t release the source. In the
process of this, that person cuts himself off from any benefits of
open
source development.
Someone doesn’t modify it, and uses something else instead – and
still doesn’t release the source. In the process of this, that person
cuts himself off from any benefits of open source development.
Your comment about what is and is not enforceable strikes me as premature
and lacking strong supporting evidence.
Whatever. But unless you also require a separate hardware, physical
security, and whatnot, it is possible to disassemble the software, and
in practice this option is used.
I see. You meant enforceable in practice, in terms of trying to make
sure nobody does it – not in court, in terms of sticking it to someone
you caught doing it. I guess that distinction wasn’t clear to me in
your
earlier comments.
Years ago, I proposed a sort of “license markup language” to the OSI, on
the theory that all OSI licenses are different combinations of the same
basic features, and people could pick and choose licenses based on what
they wanted to accomplish. At the time, I remember they said they were
working on just such a thing.
Sadly, we now have 54 OSI licenses and no sign of that.
Years ago, I proposed a sort of “license markup language” to the OSI, on
the theory that all OSI licenses are different combinations of the same
basic features, and people could pick and choose licenses based on what
they wanted to accomplish. At the time, I remember they said they were
working on just such a thing.
Hmm… well, do you want to do that? I was thinking the same thing
earlier today, a sort of step-by-step questionnaire that produces a
custom license.
Nah… too much work, I’m not a lawyer, and I just stopped caring
Years ago, I proposed a sort of “license markup language” to the OSI, on
the theory that all OSI licenses are different combinations of the same
basic features, and people could pick and choose licenses based on what
they wanted to accomplish. At the time, I remember they said they were
working on just such a thing.
Sadly, we now have 54 OSI licenses and no sign of that.
Hmm… well, do you want to do that? I was thinking the same thing
earlier today, a sort of step-by-step questionnaire that produces a
custom license.
(Reminds me of those three piece picture books where you give it a
clown’s head, a plumbers belly and cowboy boots
do the same with proprietary software (the license may forbid it but modify it. Then the modification is only available as part of you
proprietary product which you make as proprietary as you like.
I’m always confused by what that’s supposed to hurt, all things
considered – so it tends to slip past my notice. Consider the two
options:
Someone modifies something, and doesn’t release the source. In the
process of this, that person cuts himself off from any benefits of open
source development.
Not necessarily. He can still benefit from the improvements and fixes
that go into the original project if the modification was relatively
clean. I do not want to judge if this is evil or not. It is possible
and it is one of the things GPL tries to prevent.
There were a few cases when GPL really won this. For one, there are
wireless routers on th market that have firmware based on Linux and
other GPL components. When people found out the manufacturer was
forced to release the source so that people could make customizations.
However, in some cases GPL has lost. Modified firmware for TiVO can be
built but won’t work because it won’t be signed by the manufacturer.
Also GPL makes this possible at some cost. GPL software is less
reusable than BSD licensed one, and because of some less careful
wording in GPL and/or other opensource licenses GPL modules cannot be
used in software covered by those licenses.
security, and whatnot, it is possible to disassemble the software, and
in practice this option is used.
I see. You meant enforceable in practice, in terms of trying to make
sure nobody does it – not in court, in terms of sticking it to someone
you caught doing it. I guess that distinction wasn’t clear to me in your
earlier comments.
There are some provisions in the law that allow reverse engineering.
At least in some places and to some extent. However, I do not follow
the development closely and I am not aware of any case when such
provision was actually used and defended in the court. And there are,
of course, many more provisions against anything
Still in real life the practical (technical) enforceability is more
important.
