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 10.68.238.65 with SMTP id vi1mr6454691pbc.7.1338654697160; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 09:31:37 -0700 (PDT) Path: l9ni11798pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!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 18:31:33 +0200 Organization: Ada @ Home Message-ID: References: <4fc4fd1c$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <3MDSK83K41059.2087037037@reece.net.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: DhWWStjOOgqdlpg9pR9VBQ.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: 2012-06-02T18:31:33+02:00 List-Id: Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 15:59:43 +0200, darkestkhan = a = =C3=A9crit: > On Saturday, June 2, 2012 10:25:56 AM UTC, Hibou57 (Yannick Duch=C3=AA= ne) = > wrote: >> Le Sat, 02 Jun 2012 10:06:23 +0200, Simon Wright = a >> =C3=A9crit: >> > Is there evidence for "the doubt about the GPL is increasing"? >> >> Well, =E2=80=9Cincreasing=E2=80=9D may be misleading as it does not e= xplicitly express = >> an >> amount by which. I should have said =E2=80=9Cvisibly increasing=E2=80= =9D (enough to be >> visible). I have a web connection at home since about 2005, and at th= at >> time, there was near to no visible opposition to the GPL which was >> glorified every where. Questioning seems more frequent to me since so= me >> time (two or three years?). Some big enough examples I have in mind, = is = >> an >> affair with WordPress themes designers [?], who suddenly was [?] forc= ed = >> 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 the= mes >> author made a living from it. > > So? He broke license in the first place so he should be publishing his= = > work under GPL. Designing themes, is graphic designer work. Prior to that case, I've hea= rd = of skinning or theming contaminated by the license of the application it= = applies to. That an example of how tricky the GPL is. If my mind is righ= t, = because the themes was attached via PHP hook, then this was considered t= o = be linking, and thus considered to be GPLed. There were not programmer, = = but graphic designer, their did not released programs, but styles, = nevertheless, the GPL applied, late, as a bad surprise (and that's not t= he = only bad trick of the GPL contaminating effect, will give another = potential issue later in this post). You can release a picture created = with GIMP with under license you want, but you cannot release a WordPres= s = theme, under any license you want. > 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 - What happens as soon after, is that themes were made available in multip= le = place for free download. They were no more sells for many of theme, for = = whom the story ended here. A few other could go one, because they had = clients who were unlikely to give away their graphic identity to every = one. No the case of most theme users though. > after all GNAT Pro also is under GPL and we don't see many people = > sharing it. The kind of customers is not the same. Comparison is irrelevant. >> Another one, is Aqsis (a RenderMan >> processor), which migrated its license from GPL to BSD (the author sa= id = >> 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 >> =E2=80=9Cthe Perle way to undermine the GPL virus=E2=80=9D. >> If you search the web for =E2=80=9CGPL >> is not free=E2=80=9D, 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 the= ir = >> 5 >> to 6 years ago, or else I've missed it at that time, just to say I fe= el = >> to >> see more now than before. >> Apache migrated from GPL to Apache License? I though it was Apache Licen= se = since the beginning. Anyway, if that still additional example of case = where at least GPL seems to cause some troubles, enough to switch to = something else. > 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 =E2=80=9Cthis a= nd that=E2=80=9D, = >> and >> is not, which is source of confusion, and confusion leads to >> recriminations too. >> > > If they release something about license they misinterpreted it is thei= r = > sole responsibility. But if they are the sole proprietors of work then= = > they can relicense. Not that simple; misinterpretation and undecidable interpretations, are = = easily there. (and here is the opportunity for some of the questions I mentioned in = reply to George) When a license is that much misunderstood, I believe the license must be= = fixed, and the communication about it, too. One of them, while not the = most common one, is the belief that GPL is simple and that the =E2=80=9C= P=E2=80=9D of = =E2=80=9CPublic=E2=80=9D implies =E2=80=9CPublic Domain=E2=80=9D. This o= ne is not due to the license terms = (otherwise if you read its text, you easily see the contrary of both = point), but due to quick assertions made to promote it. Still an issue = around it. Another one, is an example I encountered with an application named K3D. = = That's a GPLed 3D modeler. It has a core application, which can load = plugins. As a 3D modeler, it lacks animation capabilities, which make it= = useless to many artist. As their seemed to be a demand for that, I thoug= h = =E2=80=9Cwhy not make a plugin for standard shape=E2=80=91key animation?= =E2=80=9D (not for free as = in beer). I tell about this to the author to inquire about his/her = opinion, and was surprisingly tell if the application is GPL, then plugi= ns = must be GPL too. How strange, in the same vein, you have VST plugins in = = MIDI sequencers. GPL fan surprisingly don't hesitate to use proprietary = = VST (but still free as in beer, you guess) in GPLed MIDI sequencers. So,= = seems the interpretation depends on the actual interest (guess the mess = if = such a fuzzy interpretation ever happens in a court or dispute). This on= e = is probably due to the phantasm to force every one to the GPL by any mea= n = (or else people using non=E2=80=91GPL VST in a GPL MIDI sequencer are wr= ong), and = make me think about two others issue in the same area (which follows). A funny one. Say a library L1 is GPLed. You link an application = dynamically to L1, so this application must be GPL. Now say you have = another library L2, providing the same interface and service, which is n= ot = GPL (example: one you created yourself). Now what about the application = = which dynamically link to either L1 or L2? Is will be GPL or not dependi= ng = on runtime circumstance? So it may be GPL or not, in an undetermined sta= te = =C3=A0=E2=80=91la quantum mechanic, which will be know only at runtime? = Or else, does = it depends on the interface declaration used to compile the application?= = It this was compiled with interface specification from the GPLed library= = then it is GPL and if it was compiled with th interface specification or= = the non=E2=80=91GPL one, then it is not GPL? Obviously GPL goes too far = and cause = potential paradoxes, when it requires contamination to be applicable via= = dynamic linking. The above one in turn makes me think about another one. Is the interface= = specification, part of the source which force an application to be GPL? = I = guess GPL fan will promptly say =E2=80=9Cobviously=E2=80=9D, but so, is = the GPL a kind of = software patent? Could surely not be defended in any court. Still in the area of linking, not an interpretation issue, but something= = which shows how much GPL can lead to stupid things, still due to its = attempt to force contamination via dynamic linking. If a library L is GP= L = and an application A dynamically links to L, it must be GPL. Now imagine= = two intermediate layer LI1 and LI2. Imagine there is between LI1 and LI2= , = a communication via a pipe, and LI1 and LI2 are both = serializer/unserializer, to that A makes a request via LI1, which = serialize the request into a textual representation, send it to LI2 via = a = pipe like stdout/stdin, which in turn unserialize it to finally call L, = = and the same for the return path. Imagine LI2 is GPLed, but not A and LI= 1. = You achieve the same as a dynamic linking, just less efficiently. To say= a = thing is a derivative work of another thing, depending on the kind of AP= I = is uses to use it, seems stupid to me. The above trick leads to Affero GPL: would the interpretation of the abo= ve = case be different with Affero GPL? This one would be a lot challenging t= o = me. Notice all of these are all due to the phantasm to be able to force ever= y = one to GPL by any mean (the viral effect, a virus you could caught even = in = a sterile room, or the deny of others already mentioned); this lead to = wobbly issues. Compared to that, most proprietary license are a piece of= = cake to figure out. There is a lack of precision for all of this things = in = the GPL, and trying to make the GPL answer some of these cases, would = probably make it even more complicated, leading to new issues, probably.= Yes, BSD and some others are much simpler and less playing tricky things= . -- = =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