Re: Patch Licensing Terms

[Paige DePol <lual@...>]

Sean Conner <sean@conman.org> wrote:

> It was thus said that the Great Paige DePol once stated:
>> I think I will just go with the MIT license Lua uses then. Upon further
>> reflection I don't know if I want to force people to have to release their
>> changes under a specific license just because they used some of my code.
>> Oh... wait, is this the issue people were having years ago with the changes
>> to the GPL? The "poison pill" or whatever that Microsoft was calling it?
> 
>  Not quite.  The GPLv2 states that you must, for up to three years, supply
> the source code to your program to anyone who has obtained a binary version
> of your program (either by buying a copy from you, or if you give them a
> copy) if they ask for it.  They then can modify the program to suit their
> needs, and if *they* make their version available (either for sale or giving
> it away), they too, are bound to make their changes available to their
> users.

Okay, I didn't know about the 3-year limitation on the GPLv2, good to know.
So, after three years the source doesn't need to be provided on demand?

I read some pages on Richard Stallman's website... quite an interesting
person I must say. I can't say I disagree with him, but I don't know that I
necessarily agree with everything he believes either. Was some interesting
reading though!


>  But this doesn't prevent a company from taking the software and burning it
> into firmware.  Yes, they have to make the source code available to their
> customers who ask, but they don't have to make a way for the customer to
> reload the device with a modified firmware.  This is the so
> called-TIVOisation loophole.

Right, so you can have the source, but essentially it is useless, other than
to look at, as it needs to be burned into firmware to use. Viewing the source
can be good to get eyeballs looking at the source for security purposes, but
not good if a bug is found and the vendor has to be relied on for an update.


>  The GPLv3 fixes this loophole, thus a user of your code can not only
> obtain the source code, but can modify it and reflash the firmware of a
> device to run the modified code.  Not many companies like this.

Ah. Well, if that is the case then yes... I can see why some companies
may not like that and would stick with the GPLv2 license.


>  I'm still not sure how the GPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2 (they are
> incompatiable, but I still don't understand the arguments).

I have been doing some reading myself, and learning a fair bit... like, for
example, "free software" and "open source" aren't really the same thing!
It seems what has a lot of people upset about the GPLv3 is the addition of
language specific to patents, along with DRM specific clauses. There were
a whole lot of flame wars about the changes... and probably still are!  


>> If people are using my code than I am happy enough with attribution, though
>> I will still hope that they would release and share their changes.. but
>> I won't force them to via a license.
> 
>  Just keep in mind that the BSD/MIT licenses allow a company like Intel to
> use your code in their top-secret, can-read-all-memory, maybe-backdoored-
> maybe-not and can't-disable-it Management Engine, present in all Intel chips
> since 2008 [1][2] (I'm just saying ... sorry if this is too political for
> this list).

Maybe I'll create my own MIT-style license, and add one extra clause:

Don't use the source code to be evil! 

I have decided that for this project, my patches for vanilla Lua and the
derivative language I am creating, I will follow in Lua's footsteps in
regards to the license used. While I would like people to release any
changes they make back to the community I don't want to force the issue
and would like to maintain license compatibility with Lua code.

Another benefit is that the license is dead simple... you can use my
code, just give me credit somewhere. Given the complex nature of a lot
of the other licenses, there is something to be said for simplicity!

As for the Intel Management Engine... I don't even know where to start,
but this list probably isn't the best place for that discussion as I am
pretty sure it probably doesn't run Lua. Though, even if it did I don't
think they'd tell us! ;)

~Paige


> [2]	Good news everybody!

Anyone else hear that in Professor Farnsworth's voice? :D
http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/Hubert_J._Farnsworth