wxPython Licence vs GPL

[Steven D'Aprano]

My only intention was to point out that "Free Software" is a rather
misleading term.

I still think of the term "Free Software" as false advertising.

I'm FREE to use the software, FREE to redistribute it,
FREE to give it away, FREE to make derivative works,
FREE to transfer the licence, *and* I got it FREE of
cost as well, but that doesn't make it free.

Not on Bizarro World at least.

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

Grow up, Steven.

Sure -- when you convince me that products that are
FREE of cost and allow FREE usage is "not free", I'll
stop pointing out that your claims that FREE software
is "false advertising" are incoherent.

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

Take your off-topic argument off-list.

You don't think questions of the legality of when and
how you can write and distribute Python programs are of
interest to Python developers?

Fair enough I suppose. Who cares what the licences say,
we're all just going to break them anyway.

 

[bonono]

Whether or not some fragments of code remain unchanged at the end of
your project, if you start out with a piece of source code lifted from
wxPython then what you have created is definitely a "derivative work"
and, as such, you must take into account the wxPython license in your
licensing of the derivative work.

Is that true ? What if I remove/replace the copyright doubtful portion
with another implementation ? I believe this happens all the time in
commerical software sue too.

 

[Robert Kern]

You don't think questions of the legality of when and
how you can write and distribute Python programs are of
interest to Python developers?

The OP's question certainly was on-topic. The argument over whether the
GPL is "freer" than some other license is not. It doesn't even fit the
description you give above. I don't mind off-topic threads so much, but
when they devolve into mere shouting matches like this one, they need to
be taken into private email or some other appropriate forum.

--
Robert Kern
(e-mail address removed)

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter

 

[Steve Holden]

Is that true ? What if I remove/replace the copyright doubtful portion
with another implementation ? I believe this happens all the time in
commerical software sue too.

Well I suppose I'd argue that if you include a piece of source code and
then remove it, your product didn't really "start out" with it, but this
is mere detail.

The thrust of my original remarks was to try to persuade the OP that the
original comment about changing the code was ingenuous. If you take some
code under license as a starting point then even if no line of code
remains unchanged at the end of the process your code is arguably a
derivative work of the original.

regards
Steve

 

[Mike Meyer]

Is that true ? What if I remove/replace the copyright doubtful portion
with another implementation ? I believe this happens all the time in
commerical software sue too.

In general, if you can show you removed all the licensed code that was
in your code, and replaced it with software from another source,
you're cool. That's how the BSD distributions came about - Berkeley's
Computer Systems Research Group rewrote pretty much all of Unix.

However, you're still liable to be sued. CSRG was, which is part of
why BSD languished while Linux was taking off. It's also why the
previous paragraph is a gross oversimplification. The court case
didn't establish a real precedent, as it turned out AT&T was
distributing code that belonged to CSRG in violation of the BSD
license. So they reached a settlement in which CSRG was allowed to
distribute a tape that had most of a Unix sytem on it, a few key files
that AT&T claimed as their own being withheld. This is the "BSD Lite"
distribution that the *BSD systems and parts of OS X are based on. All
this backstory made the SCO barratry much more entertaining.

<mike

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

The thrust of my original remarks was to try to persuade the OP that the
original comment about changing the code was ingenuous. If you take some
code under license as a starting point then even if no line of code
remains unchanged at the end of the process your code is arguably a
derivative work of the original.

"Derivative work" is not a well-formed concept. Many
copyright lawyers have made many fortunes arguing
whether or not this work or that work is a derivative
work of some other.

 

[bonono]

In general, if you can show you removed all the licensed code that was
in your code, and replaced it with software from another source,
you're cool. That's how the BSD distributions came about - Berkeley's
Computer Systems Research Group rewrote pretty much all of Unix.

However, you're still liable to be sued. CSRG was, which is part of
why BSD languished while Linux was taking off. It's also why the
previous paragraph is a gross oversimplification. The court case
didn't establish a real precedent, as it turned out AT&T was
distributing code that belonged to CSRG in violation of the BSD
license. So they reached a settlement in which CSRG was allowed to
distribute a tape that had most of a Unix sytem on it, a few key files
that AT&T claimed as their own being withheld. This is the "BSD Lite"
distribution that the *BSD systems and parts of OS X are based on. All
this backstory made the SCO barratry much more entertaining.

Thanks, I was just trying to clarify it. As my initially understanding
of Steve's post is that your work would be perpetual derivative work
which doesn't sound too convincing for me.

As for the liability, that is for sure, withness what is happening for
the linux kernel.

 

[Steve Holden]

Steve Holden wrote:




"Derivative work" is not a well-formed concept. Many
copyright lawyers have made many fortunes arguing
whether or not this work or that work is a derivative
work of some other.

Hence my use of the word "arguably".

regards
Steve

 

[Martin P. Hellwig]

Steven D'Aprano wrote:

I'm FREE to use the software, FREE to redistribute it, FREE to give it
away, FREE to make derivative works, FREE to transfer the licence, *and*
I got it FREE of cost as well, but that doesn't make it free.

Indeed, when I explain GPL to non-techies and what their (RMS)
interpretation of free software is I usually ask first if they know what
IP (Intellectual Property not Internet Protocol) is and what the
difference is between that and other legals stuff like Copyright and
Trademarks.

Then I make sure we have the same definition about Software and what I
mean with the word Public in the context of software.

After that I define GPL as:
Obligatory Public Intellectual Property Software

If the non-techie is still interested, I'll rave on about that I
understand why GPL is a good way to ensure availability of IP especially
if the software is a collaborated effort in the academic scene.
And that I probably use that if I made software for my employer (a
Foundation founded by multiple High-Schools) but that deeply personal
I'll stick to the beerware license, because I fully agree on PHK license
vision.

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

As for the liability, that is for sure, withness what is happening for
the linux kernel.

What is happening for the Linux kernel?

 

[Peter Hansen]

What is happening for the Linux kernel?

The confidence of some of its (potential? gullible?) users in their
ability to use it without being sued is being eroded by crafty negative
marketing by Microsoft and others.

-Peter

 

[bonono]

The confidence of some of its (potential? gullible?) users in their
ability to use it without being sued is being eroded by crafty negative
marketing by Microsoft and others.

I meant the SCO saga, don't know if you are referring the same thing.

 

[Jorge Godoy]

I meant the SCO saga, don't know if you are referring the same thing.

Probably. MS bought some shares from SCO to help financing the lawsuit.

Anyway, I don't see much people worrying about it and in fact, I see more
people laughing about SCO's mistakes and wrong information / facts...

 

[Paul Boddie]

Ed Jensen wrote:

[On closed source derivatives of Python]

I'm aware of this concern. I don't think it's justified. Unless
you'd like to point out all those closed, proprietary Python
implementations that are destroying civilization as we know it.

Well, there was some concern voiced at EuroPython that a certain large
software-patent-lobbying organisation wouldn't release the shiny port
of Python that they'd done for their mobile telephone products. Now,
one can either emulate that well-practised foot-stamping routine of
yours...

Wah, wah, I gave this software away for free, and people are actually
using it without giving anything back! Wah, wah!

....or one can question the suitability or otherwise of the Python
licence. Since licences define the type of sharing and community around
a project, one has to be careful in choosing a licence in order to get
the kind of sharing and community that one wants.

In another recent licensing spat, some people are apparently unhappy
with one Python-related project's use of the GPL, since the code they
originally contributed to an older, related project ends up being
redistributed under the GPL in the former project whereas the latter
project cannot redistribute the former project's original code without
putting a GPL licence on the distributed work. Now, if the latter
project, with its advantage of having come into existence first had
chosen a GPL-incompatible licence, it's quite possible that they would
have avoided the situation that some seem to bemoan, but then one has
to consider the likelihood that people actually do want GPL
compatibility in their favourite open source projects.

My point about the freeloading was that business understandably likes
to do it. I don't feel any sympathy for participants in various Apache
projects that are hugely popular in business, for example, if those
participants dislike the lack of contributions from those companies
using their software to make money, because those who founded those
projects made a conscious licensing decision and that decision defines
the kind of sharing (or otherwise) around such projects.

I never said anything was being "pushed on" me. I never said anything
was being "imposed on" me. I said an agenda was being pushed.
Stallman and company have an agenda, and the GPL is their instrument
of choice for pushing that agenda.

So if you're not personally affected, as you claim, why does it bother
you?

Paul

 

[Mike Meyer]

If the non-techie is still interested, I'll rave on about that I
understand why GPL is a good way to ensure availability of IP
especially if the software is a collaborated effort in the academic
scene.

Your comment about the GPL "ensuring availability" would imply that
other-licensed software has a tendency to become unavailable. Do you
know of any examples of such?

<mike

 

[Martin P. Hellwig]

Your comment about the GPL "ensuring availability" would imply that
other-licensed software has a tendency to become unavailable. Do you
know of any examples of such?

<mike

Yes, it happens on a regular bases that *BSD's are ported to a
particular platform or devices and that the necessary changes to make it
work that way are not released back (eg Ironport mail systems). Other
examples are extensions of other software to fill a particular need that
are kept close for a binary only sale (eg Mammoth PostgreSQL +
Replication).

There are numerous other examples, most of them are "company secrets".

Note that I do not have any objections to it, if I owned a company
making profit on software sales (sale =! support) you sign a death wish
for using GPL, if it's coupled with a device then things are different.
If you sell support, GPL is a wonderful way to maximize your income.

 

[Mike Meyer]

Yes, it happens on a regular bases that *BSD's are ported to a
particular platform or devices and that the necessary changes to make
it work that way are not released back (eg Ironport mail
systems). Other examples are extensions of other software to fill a
particular need that are kept close for a binary only sale (eg Mammoth
PostgreSQL + Replication).

Is that software really unavailable, or just unavailable for free? If
the latter, then it's not unavailabe. If the former, the it didn't
become unavailable, as it was never available in the first place.
In the latter case, you could also use those examples to similarly
"prove" that non-GPL'ed software is a "good way to ensure the
availability of IP", as the developers of those IPs obviously felt
that the ability to restrict distribution in some way was needed to
make the effort of developing and distributing the software in the
first place worthwhile.

<mike

 

[Martin P. Hellwig]

Mike Meyer wrote:

Is that software really unavailable, or just unavailable for free? If
the latter, then it's not unavailabe. If the former, the it didn't
become unavailable, as it was never available in the first place.
In the latter case, you could also use those examples to similarly
"prove" that non-GPL'ed software is a "good way to ensure the
availability of IP", as the developers of those IPs obviously felt
that the ability to restrict distribution in some way was needed to
make the effort of developing and distributing the software in the
first place worthwhile.

I agree that your opinions are based on a valid points, however, not
available for free means it has a price tag, which means that a normal
'small' price tag for western society excludes +75% of the world
population for that product (sure most of them don't want/need it
anyway, what good is software without hardware).

Those who can not afford the software are excluded for that end product
even though they may have worked on the source where 99,99% of the
restricted licensed software is based on.

However I make a poor defender for the GPL because, as you can read in
my previous posts, I don't really believe in it.