<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'><div>We shouldn't spend much time on this, but...</div><div><br></div><div>The license that OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD use, that is what we should use.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>It is the same license.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>These are fairly large heavily used projects, and they copy code around amongst each</div><div>other, and commercial ventures fork and close the code, without attribution -- that is allowed.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>This is a license that lets anyone do just about anything, including take it as their own and profit.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>it is a short license.</div><div>Shorter than this email.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>It does not require giving credit.</div><div>Giving credit is nice, but exactly how/where/when? And how much</div><div>time/energy must people spend to figure that out?</div><div>The older BSD license required giving credit, and there was protest and the claused was dropped.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>it does not require giving back. Again, giving back is great, but requiring it is too much.</div><div>What if someone wants to release something but we are all on vacation not answering email?</div><div>They have to wait for us to respond to take their changes before they can ship them?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>The point of this license is to remove any barrier to reuse that is easy to remove.</div><div>(ignoring quality and functionality of the code)</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>One of the reasons OpenBSD rejects licenses is because more licenses requires more reading</div><div>and possibly more lawyer time, more uncertainty, when there are already sufficient tried-and-true</div><div>licenses. I believe this is why they reject the Apache 2.0 license.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>What the GPL does is quite different. It basically makes you GPL anything</div><div>you link the GPL code to. It maybe doesn't require giving back, or require giving credit,</div><div>but it requires source be available to anyone that receives the binaries. You can sell the binaries,</div><div>but you must do so including source (or a link to download the source).</div><div>Most commercial ventures believe that this requirement makes it impossible to make money.</div><div>You might get one sale, but then the source is out and anyone can duplicate the functionality.</div><div>Others claim that "support" is an adequate business model.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>(If you are just sitting on the binaries all by yourself and don't give them to anyone, the GPL has no effect, you</div><div>can keep the source to yourself as well. People sometimes misunderstand this.)</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>MIT license is probably about the same and probably second best.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> - Jay<br><br><br><br></div><div>> Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:36:58 -0500<br>> From: hendrik@topoi.pooq.com<br>> To: m3devel@elegosoft.com<br>> Subject: Re: [M3devel] addition of GPL stuff<br>> <br>> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 07:36:11AM +0000, microcode@zoho.com wrote:<br>> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 06:30:09PM -0500, Hendrik Boom wrote:<br>> > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 06:14:52AM +0000, Jay K wrote:<br>> > > > Um, sorry to bring up such annoying matters, but maybe we should not <br>> > > be licensingnew files as GPL, assuming they aren't derived from GPL files?<br>> > > > e.g. the LLVM m3makfiles and Makefiles?<br>> > > > Thank you, - Jay<br>> > <br>> > snip<br>> > <br>> > > Tht way, if ever a viable collection of Modula 3 code is licenced under <br>> > > GPL, that collection can be used with GPL code freely.<br>> > <br>> > No. MIT and BSD licensed code can be used in any project. GPL poisons the<br>> > product and is not compatible with free software licenses.<br>> <br>> Yes, MIT licence is good. And it doesn't conflict with the SRC <br>> licence, either so that should be good, too.<br>> <br>> And so is the BSD licence without the advertising clause.<br>> <br>> Apple went to town with this one when theyy build OS/X, so it's <br>> definitely nonrestrictive.<br>> <br>> > <br>> > I realize my opinion is irrelevant but I agree with Jay 1,000% on this. And<br>> > it's an open mailing list, so...<br>> > <br>> > <br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > M3devel mailing list<br>> > M3devel@elegosoft.com<br>> > https://mail.elegosoft.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m3devel<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> M3devel mailing list<br>> M3devel@elegosoft.com<br>> https://mail.elegosoft.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m3devel<br></div> </div></body>
</html>