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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham 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,UTF8 Received: by 10.68.196.232 with SMTP id ip8mr6016754pbc.6.1338637740191; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 04:49:00 -0700 (PDT) Path: l9ni11045pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin3!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?= =?utf-8?Q?=29?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Fuzzy machine learning framework v1.2 Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 13:48:58 +0200 Organization: Ada @ Home Message-ID: References: <4fc4fd1c$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <3MDSK83K41059.2087037037@reece.net.au> <4fc9f04f$0$6559$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 6flBXUMgZrqdd9515v8bzw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.00 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable Date: 2012-06-02T13:48:58+02:00 List-Id: Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 12:52:02 +0200, Georg Bauhaus = a =C3=A9crit: > > Valuations of either type of licenses, MIT/BSD or GPL, assume > fraudulent entrepreneurship. Hu? > There is enough evidence that fraud > in business is a reasonable assumption. The following if under conditions I did not erroneously understood your = = words. If the opposite, fix me. That's the king of assumption (which indeed often come with the GPL = culture), which make some people look at this license with amusement. Smalltalk: Some business are fraudulent, not all. Further more, the more= = little your business is, the more you can't be fraudulent. To be = fraudulent, you have to be able to keep your customers captive, even if = = they don't enjoy you; the kind of thing a small business is unlikely to = be = able to. > Let product P be a work combined from Foreign_Source and Our_Source. > P is to be conveyed. In what follows, "theft" should also stand for > a violation of terms and conditions. > > (1) Type MIT/BSD licenses enable closing the source of P and are used > to prevent theft of privately owned goods, namely theft of Our_Source.= > > (2) Type GPL licenses require keeping the source of P open and are use= d > to prevent theft of privately owned goods, namely that of Foreign_Sour= ce. > > Type MIT/BSD emphasizes technical prevention of theft, > Type GPL emphasizes legal prevention of theft. On the average, I understand the same too, that's indeed a part of their= = respective properties. > The difference is one of perspective (licensor - licensee). > > > Proof of (2) [GPL prevents theft of Foreign_Source]: > > Law abiding entrepreneurs will not choose Type GPL Foreign_Source > (unless they can get special permission) if P should be conveyed > without source. Since they don't use Type GPL software, they don't > steal it. This shows that the prevention of theft of Foreign_Source > is effective IFF parties are law abiding. Yes > A mere desire to include Foreign_Source under different terms and > conditions is not sufficient to warrant criticizing the licensors > for *their* *choice* just because you don't like it. Yes, there's no excuse for that, but this leave enough room to discuss = licenses properties. By the way, an opinion I forget to tell before: one of the property I = don't like with the GPL, is that it's tricky to me. A permissive license= = may lack some precision, as long as it does not have too much = consequences. A restrictive license, has heavy consequences, and because= = it has heavy consequences, it should be very precise and explicit. = Unfortunately, although its text is already rather long compared to = others, it is not to me. If I find a good starting point with another = message from this thread, I will make it an opportunity to ask for the = questions (lack of precision in the GPL) I have in mind. May be someone = = here will have enough knowledge and experiences to suggest me answers. > Last but not least, I find it telling that the thread has little > to say in favor of licenses that will allow closed source, but that > cost money. As it happens to froggies from time to time, I could not clearly = understand this sentence (cheese and apologizes). -- = =E2=80=9CSyntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.=E2=80=9D [1] =E2=80=9CStructured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.= =E2=80=9D [1] [1]: Epigrams on Programming =E2=80=94 Alan J. =E2=80=94 P. Yale Univers= ity