Re: Fuzzy machine learning framework v1.2

[darkestkhan <darkestkhan@gmail.com>]

On Saturday, June 2, 2012 10:25:56 AM UTC, Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne) wrote:
> Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 10:06:23 +0200, Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> a  
> écrit:
> > Is there evidence for "the doubt about the GPL is increasing"?
> 
> Well, “increasing” may be misleading as it does not explicitly express 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 that  
> time, there was near to no visible opposition to the GPL which was  
> glorified every where. Questioning seems more frequent to me since some  
> time (two or three years?). Some big enough examples I have in mind, is an  
> affair with WordPress themes designers [?], who suddenly was [?] forced to release
> their works under the GPL, after multiple years selling their works 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 themes  
> author made a living from it.

So? He broke license in the first place so he should be publishing his work under GPL. On the other hand I don't see how he can't make living selling GPL'd themes - after all he isn't required to give them for free nor is he required to give sources to everyone [in fact he has to give them only to buyers]. And don't say that people would be sharing his work with everyone - after all GNAT Pro also is under GPL and we don't see many people sharing it.

> Another one, is Aqsis (a RenderMan  
> processor), which migrated its license from GPL to BSD (the author said if  
> contributors don't agree, then their contributions will simply be removed  
>  from Aqsis). 

So? There is also Apache and OpenOffice...  I don't see how is it 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 exact  
> sentence. From time to time, I see some other kinds of questioning,  
> sometime dealing with commercial activities (in fact impossible, and the  
> 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 their 5  
> to 6 years ago, or else I've missed it at that time, just to say I feel to  
> see more now than before.
> 

Oh, it was - after searching for "gpl is not free" what I get in most search results is mostly from 2003 - 2008 : with many of it from Skype [they breached OpenMoko's license] and SCO [which was saying that GPL is unconstitutional].
It is comming back now because Apple is [and Microsoft is trying to] prohibiting sales of GPL licensed software in Apple Store.

> To not talk also about miss-interpretations, when some people choose to  
> release under the GPL because they believe the GPL is “this and that”, 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 sole responsibility. But if they are the sole proprietors of work then they can relicense.