From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,25457a5aee9eaa04 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Received: by 10.68.234.38 with SMTP id ub6mr6741312pbc.2.1338665515716; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 12:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Path: l9ni12274pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: darkestkhan Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Fuzzy machine learning framework v1.2 Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 12:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <4fc4fd1c$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <3MDSK83K41059.2087037037@reece.net.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.59.74.180 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1338665515 13470 127.0.0.1 (2 Jun 2012 19:31:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 19:31:55 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=193.59.74.180; posting-account=nuF4hQoAAADjc2KKS1rOkzxWWEmaDrvx User-Agent: G2/1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2012-06-02T12:31:55-07:00 List-Id: On Saturday, June 2, 2012 4:31:33 PM UTC, Hibou57 (Yannick Duch=EAne) wrote= : > Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 15:59:43 +0200, darkestkhan a= =20 > =E9crit: >=20 > > On Saturday, June 2, 2012 10:25:56 AM UTC, Hibou57 (Yannick Duch=EAne) = =20 > > wrote: > >> Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 10:06:23 +0200, Simon Wright = a > >> =E9crit: > >> > Is there evidence for "the doubt about the GPL is increasing"? > >> > >> Well, "increasing" may be misleading as it does not explicitly express= =20 > >> 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 tha= t > >> time, there was near to no visible opposition to the GPL which was > >> glorified every where. Questioning seems more frequent to me since som= e > >> time (two or three years?). Some big enough examples I have in mind, i= s =20 > >> an > >> affair with WordPress themes designers [?], who suddenly was [?] force= d =20 > >> to release > >> their works under the GPL, after multiple years selling their works = =20 > >> 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 them= es > >> author made a living from it. > > > > So? He broke license in the first place so he should be publishing his = =20 > > work under GPL. >=20 > Designing themes, is graphic designer work. Prior to that case, I've hear= d =20 > of skinning or theming contaminated by the license of the application it = =20 > applies to. That an example of how tricky the GPL is. If my mind is right= , =20 > because the themes was attached via PHP hook, then this was considered to= =20 > be linking, and thus considered to be GPLed.=20 I would have to read more about installing themes in WordPress but to my be= st knowledge pure graphics can't be contaminated by GPL. > There were not programmer, =20 > but graphic designer, their did not released programs, but styles, =20 > nevertheless, the GPL applied, late, as a bad surprise (and that's not th= e =20 > only bad trick of the GPL contaminating effect, will give another =20 > potential issue later in this post). You can release a picture created = =20 > with GIMP with under license you want, but you cannot release a WordPress= =20 > theme, under any license you want. >=20 > > On the other hand I don't see how he can't make living selling GPL'd = =20 > > themes - after all he isn't required to give them for free nor is he = =20 > > required to give sources to everyone [in fact he has to give them only = =20 > > to buyers]. And don't say that people would be sharing his work with = =20 > > everyone - >=20 > What happens as soon after, is that themes were made available in multipl= e =20 > place for free download. They were no more sells for many of theme, for = =20 > whom the story ended here. A few other could go one, because they had =20 > clients who were unlikely to give away their graphic identity to every = =20 > one. No the case of most theme users though. >=20 > > after all GNAT Pro also is under GPL and we don't see many people =20 > > sharing it. >=20 > The kind of customers is not the same. Comparison is irrelevant. >=20 > >> Another one, is Aqsis (a RenderMan > >> processor), which migrated its license from GPL to BSD (the author sai= d =20 > >> if > >> contributors don't agree, then their contributions will simply be =20 > >> removed > >> from Aqsis). > > > > So? There is also Apache and OpenOffice... I don't see how is it =20 > > 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 exa= ct > >> sentence. From time to time, I see some other kinds of questioning, > >> sometime dealing with commercial activities (in fact impossible, and t= he > >> 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 thei= r =20 > >> 5 > >> to 6 years ago, or else I've missed it at that time, just to say I fee= l =20 > >> to > >> see more now than before. > >> >=20 > Apache migrated from GPL to Apache License? I though it was Apache Licens= e =20 > since the beginning. Anyway, if that still additional example of case =20 > where at least GPL seems to cause some troubles, enough to switch to =20 > something else. >=20 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] > > Oh, it was - after searching for "gpl is not free" what I get in most = =20 > > search results is mostly from 2003 - 2008 : with many of it from Skype = =20 > > [they breached OpenMoko's license] and SCO [which was saying that GPL i= s =20 > > unconstitutional]. > > It is comming back now because Apple is [and Microsoft is trying to] = =20 > > prohibiting sales of GPL licensed software in Apple Store. > > > >> To not talk also about miss-interpretations, when some people choose t= o > >> release under the GPL because they believe the GPL is "this and that",= =20 > >> 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= =20 > > sole responsibility. But if they are the sole proprietors of work then = =20 > > they can relicense. >=20 > Not that simple; misinterpretation and undecidable interpretations, are = =20 > easily there. >=20 > (and here is the opportunity for some of the questions I mentioned in =20 > reply to George) >=20 > When a license is that much misunderstood, I believe the license must be = =20 > fixed, and the communication about it, too. One of them, while not the = =20 > most common one, is the belief that GPL is simple and that the "P" of =20 > "Public" implies "Public Domain". This one is not due to the license term= s =20 > (otherwise if you read its text, you easily see the contrary of both =20 > point), but due to quick assertions made to promote it. Still an issue = =20 > around it. >=20 It is problem we can't solve (also there is no public domain in many countr= ies in Europe) if people don't read licenses and assume just from name alon= e. (there was story about some internet service which in license agreements pu= t 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 P= olish than English "deal with the devil")]. > Another one, is an example I encountered with an application named K3D. = =20 > That's a GPLed 3D modeler. It has a core application, which can load =20 > plugins. As a 3D modeler, it lacks animation capabilities, which make it = =20 > useless to many artist. As their seemed to be a demand for that, I though= =20 > "why not make a plugin for standard shape-key animation?" (not for free a= s =20 > in beer). I tell about this to the author to inquire about his/her =20 > opinion, and was surprisingly tell if the application is GPL, then plugin= s =20 > must be GPL too. How strange, in the same vein, you have VST plugins in = =20 > MIDI sequencers. GPL fan surprisingly don't hesitate to use proprietary = =20 > VST (but still free as in beer, you guess) in GPLed MIDI sequencers. So, = =20 > seems the interpretation depends on the actual interest (guess the mess i= f =20 > such a fuzzy interpretation ever happens in a court or dispute). This one= =20 > is probably due to the phantasm to force every one to the GPL by any mean= =20 > (or else people using non-GPL VST in a GPL MIDI sequencer are wrong), and= =20 > 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 linke= d to some non-GPL compatible license. =20 > A funny one. Say a library L1 is GPLed. You link an application =20 > dynamically to L1, so this application must be GPL. Now say you have =20 > another library L2, providing the same interface and service, which is no= t =20 > GPL (example: one you created yourself). Now what about the application = =20 > which dynamically link to either L1 or L2? Is will be GPL or not dependin= g =20 > on runtime circumstance? So it may be GPL or not, in an undetermined stat= e =20 > =E0-la quantum mechanic, which will be know only at runtime? Or else, doe= s =20 > it depends on the interface declaration used to compile the application? = =20 > It this was compiled with interface specification from the GPLed library = =20 > then it is GPL and if it was compiled with th interface specification or = =20 > the non-GPL one, then it is not GPL? Obviously GPL goes too far and cause= =20 > potential paradoxes, when it requires contamination to be applicable via = =20 > dynamic linking. >=20 :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] so= ftware linked against GPL then it must be under GPL compatible license. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=3D20120531172522459 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 f= rom FSF under BSD license. > The above one in turn makes me think about another one. Is the interface = =20 > specification, part of the source which force an application to be GPL? I= =20 > guess GPL fan will promptly say "obviously", but so, is the GPL a kind of= =20 > 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 = =20 > which shows how much GPL can lead to stupid things, still due to its =20 > attempt to force contamination via dynamic linking. If a library L is GPL= =20 > and an application A dynamically links to L, it must be GPL. Now imagine = =20 > two intermediate layer LI1 and LI2. Imagine there is between LI1 and LI2,= =20 > a communication via a pipe, and LI1 and LI2 are both =20 > serializer/unserializer, to that A makes a request via LI1, which =20 > serialize the request into a textual representation, send it to LI2 via a= =20 > pipe like stdout/stdin, which in turn unserialize it to finally call L, = =20 > and the same for the return path. Imagine LI2 is GPLed, but not A and LI1= . =20 > You achieve the same as a dynamic linking, just less efficiently. To say = a =20 > thing is a derivative work of another thing, depending on the kind of API= =20 > is uses to use it, seems stupid to me. >=20 > The above trick leads to Affero GPL: would the interpretation of the abov= e =20 > case be different with Affero GPL? This one would be a lot challenging to= =20 > me. >=20 This is probably a reason why AGPL is not that much used - it is problemati= c to interpret. And IMHO libraries should be written under LGPL (or GPL wit= h Library Runtime Exception). > Notice all of these are all due to the phantasm to be able to force every= =20 > one to GPL by any mean (the viral effect, a virus you could caught even i= n =20 > a sterile room, or the deny of others already mentioned); this lead to = =20 > wobbly issues. Compared to that, most proprietary license are a piece of = =20 > cake to figure out. There is a lack of precision for all of this things i= n =20 > the GPL, and trying to make the GPL answer some of these cases, would =20 > probably make it even more complicated, leading to new issues, probably. >=20 > Yes, BSD and some others are much simpler and less playing tricky things. >=20 Though GPL is not viral - it is protective/invasive (:D) [but I'm not so su= re about case of AGPL]. Maybe it is time to write new license similar in sp= irit to LGPL (and when doing it one should use formal semantics to avoid as= many problems as possible).