Re: future of quail
Julian Bradfield <jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
On 2011-02-15, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
> Julian Bradfield <jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
>> The GPL is carefully, deliberately and explicitly designed so that
>> incorporating a piece of GPL code into any other distributed piece of
>> software makes that software have the GPL.
>
> No, that is simply wrong. The GPL is carefully, deliberately and
> explicitly designed so that you can only redistribute software based on
> the GPL under the GPL, or not at all.
Er, that's what I said.
But that's not what "viral" or "contaminate" implies. Those terms
imply
some action _not_ under control and will of the coder. They also imply
some unexpected restriction. But the _expected_ outcome using
"non-viral" "non-contaminating" code is that you may neither
distribute
nor even run the resulting code. What is more of a contamination: that
which renders almost all sensible uses of code moot, or that which tells
you you can do everything you expect, and _additionally_ can pass the
resulting code as long as you don't change the conditions under which
you received it?
If you include GPL code, and distribute your software, it must be
under the GPL. And it's not "based on". The GPL defines a modified
work as anything that involves copying in a sense controlled by
copyright law.
The GPL does not define copyright law.
Ten lines of code suffices - even one, in theory in the UK.
That's why
Stephen is being so careful about GPLv3.
Sure, but the reason is not that the GPL is viral or contaminating, but
that copyright law is an abomination. He'd have to be careful about any
other license.
> There is _no_, I repeat, _no_ automatism with which any software
of
> yours comes under the GPL magically. There is no infection. If
> _you_ choose to infect the GPLed software with material that you
> never want to
Infection is infection, whether accidental or deliberate. Maybe you
should read up on how genetic engineering is done. A major technique
is deliberate and controllable infection by viruses.
> You don't need to, and you still will be able to do anything with your
> software that a combination with proprietary software will let you do,
> most likely more.
Such as distributed closed-source software and charging for licensing?
Oh, that's normal with proprietary software licenses? Interesting. So
show me, say, the modified versions and forks of Microsoft Word that get
distributed legally like XEmacs, a fork of Emacs.
> An infection/contamination which you can switch on and off at
will
> even after first full contact.
Yes. See genetic engineering above - damn useful concept.
Sorry, but you don't just "uninfect" or "uncontaminate" during
genetic
engineering if you feel like it.
But the only reason I can do that is that I write all my own code
(for
the projects in question), and don't re-use anybody else's, and only
rely on LGPL libraries.
But you place parts into XEmacs. According to your word use, that
should infect and contaminate them.
> Who am you to tell them that licenses that can have all the ill
> effects of computer viruses and worse are _not_ a virus, while a
> license that does not, _is_?
I am one who know the difference between the denotation of a word and
its connotations.
So what point is there in throwing around bad insinuation which _you_
know to be inappropriate?
> Where is the point if a license does not require me to heed any
> terms, but if I actually use those permissions in order to slap the
> GPL on software derived from it, everybody will be calling me an
> immoral pig and thief?
Er, the BSD license allows you do that. Why would anybody call you an
immoral pig and a thief?
Excellent question.
The whole point of BSD is to allow people to use software freely,
whether they want to push a proprietary agenda or an FSF agenda, or
just want to get on with the job.
You'll find that this is not the normal BSD proponent's opinion. They
are not bothered about proprietary rereleases, but are quite annoyed to
see parts of their software crop up in GPLed software.
You should stop getting so excited about an off the cuff comment on
a
small (usually) friendly mailing list expressing my distaste for the
immense waste of XEmacs developer time caused by the GPL2 -> GPL3
transition.
That problem is not caused by any "virality" or "contamination" of
the
GPL3. It is caused by the GPL3 being incompatible with the GPL2, and
the XEmacs developers prefer to continue making use of upstream Emacs
code. If the GPL2 were bidirectionally compatible with the GPL3, the
licensing situation would mean that future versions could only become
weaker than earlier versions regarding the legal protection against
unwanted uses. Pretty pointless.
Yes, this is a nuisance for XEmacs development. But it is not like
there was any unexpected element or malice involved in it. It was bound
to happen, and calling people names for following through with what was
well-known in advance and which one did not bother preparing for in time
is not going to help in shouldering the necessary changes.
The more you repeat the propaganda of proprietary software proponent,
the more harm you do to Stephen and the XEmacs community for arriving at
a version of XEmacs that does everything you can expect it to do given
the available material upstream.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta