[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Copyright question
- From: KHMan <keinhong@...>
- Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 20:22:21 +0800
On 8/14/2011 8:05 PM, Lars Doelle wrote:
But if you are thinking to have some claim over any kind of
_mechanism_, then I think there are going to be *big* issues...
Now having a strong GPL background, i would not license my work under
MIT/X11 and wonder, if this would be considered a violation of habits,
thus making a publication partically useless. Could anyone please tell me
if there's a common position here on this matter.
Discussing mechanisms and talking about code with GPL? That's an
even bigger problem, a 30-ton brontosaurus.
Of course I have uses for GPL too, but I have huge reservations
about what you are doing.
To make myself clear here, it is not about extensions of the Lua core,
but about user's side material.
As I put a different load onto Lua, I necessarily touch Lua's expressive limits,
but i do take the purity of the language very serious. I won't even consider
the project, if it were not so. Thus i might stumble over limits and extensions,
that would make life easier in this cases, along the way, but the package would
do without any.
If i would think extending the machinery would be truly necessary, i would
release a patch under MIT, this is clear. The problem i sense is the other way
round, i.e. a possible tendency on user space contributions being only or
preferable accepted only under Lua's license itself by a community otherwise
interested into bringing Lua forward. That's my concern and my question.
To clarify, here's my reasoning: IIRC, there was a discussion of
mechanisms to do something, perhaps efficiently. Maybe a proposal
to extend Lua. I'm all for such things, may they rise or fall on
But developers concoct mechanisms all the time to solve problems
and make their app work. Thus, if your sample code do not expose
any bits of your under-wraps application, then it is merely
something that could have been coded by "a person of sufficient
skill in the art". Very rarely are mechanisms so novel that they
can claim to be invented. I can tell a judge that I insist on the
sole right to this kind of algorithm -- but I'll get roasted.
A mechanism doing something generic could have been done by
anyone. In the same vein, I use the MIT license for libraries when
I think someone else would have done something quite similar --
it's really nothing special, just grunt work.
Now, your application is the unique thing that you should protect
according to the license of your choice. It is the larger body of
work that should be GPLed. Similarly, a processor datasheet tells
you how to initialize a processor. Anyone can code something with
that information. But I cannot copy a BIOS and violate its copyright.
So forgive some of us for being critical about some things. I was
finding the proceedings a little strange and spoke up...
IMHO, perhaps you need to pick when to copyright and when not to
bother, especially when you are sharing stuff in a public forum.
Granted, the landscape of copyright is terribly broken, but I do
hope we can choose to avoid following certain non-human friendly
examples set by large corporations.
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia