Moving from GPL to MIT, BSD or LGPL, etc
Recently jQuery moved from joint GPL-MIT back to MIT it was originally under. Alfresco also moved from GPL to LGPL.
jQuery's argument, is any derivative can be re-licenced under GPL anyway, there is nothing stopping this. it was Drupal that urge them to do joint licence, but uses Symphony code, and no longer really see the need to for jQuery to be GPL-MIT.
I not sure of the nuances in doing it, but there is precedent it is worth investigating.
I think GPL is well meaning and has its place, but it also it can be very restrictive, fascist even. it remind of of the most restrictive of copy right world.
I think al lot of people got caught up in GPL without really understanding the consequences.
People are entitled to licence that way, but it just make a new framework like Garden a lot less attractive, to me, or many other people.
Think about it this way. What if RoR, or Django, CakePHP was GPL? These are frameworks too, but in order to use them, are are essentially creating a derivative work, the app and the framework make function calls together, etc.
Could you think of a situation, where you couldn’t choose your own licence for an App based on one of those frameworks? Kind of ridiculous to think about isn't it?
It is all very well being idealistic but there are practical implications. I'm actually for releasing code, it makes business sense, but unless you have a lot of free time on you hands, and head a foundation, a university lab you can sleep in for free (some people will get this joke), most people have have some income, and time is money. If you make the licence so restrictive an impractical, you are shooting yourself in the foot.
GPL has its place, but those that see is as a solution for everything they are living in a dream.
grep is your friend.
Comments
@x00 To be entirely fair, Garden is released under GPLv2. This is quite different (unfortunately) than GPLv3. I don't even know all the differences myself. From my reading and understanding, v3 is more 'restrictive' than v2. Only you can decide what license to release your software under.
Search first
Check out the Documentation! We are always looking for new content and pull requests.
Click on insightful, awesome, and funny reactions to thank community volunteers for their valuable posts.
you can only have to read a free paragraphs of that link and you can see it is drenched in ideology.
Aslo copy left, doesn't have to mean restrictive, it is the foundation that equates it to that.
grep is your friend.
I think for a pure framework MIT is fine. Vanilla is a framework and and application, but really an application first and foremost. For that I think GPLv2 is the best. We must demand some contribution back to our application in exchange for giving it away for free.
I can tell you that if we don't get the benefit of contribution then is there any point in us being open source at all?
I am not against contribution. I am not talking about forks of the framework itself.
It would be nice to think that we can decide what licence we use for plugins. Obviously if it is full proprietary then they can't use the addons section.
Unfortunately GPL actuality contradicts this as shown in their own view on addons.
There has already been a test case with wordpress. Originally wordpress brought the case, becuase one guy copied large amount of a theme without credit, which is fair. The problem is the case result is any plugin or addon must be released under GPL.
This is despite the fact there is a whole professional wordpress market. Yet there is no assurances. Technically they are in violation, if they are selling licences.
it make me less likely not more to develop addon for the framework.
Unless it is specifically put in writing from vanilla HQ that, if I provide in good faith business that is contributing tot the community, I'm not going to court for it, I might not bother otherwise.
I'm not goign to go on vague assurances of leniency.
Thing is I’m not even interested in selling licences, I want to release the code, I just want the review stage for those that pays for that development in the first place. It is called professional open source an a lot smarter and pragmatic that GPL is. This is not like private clients in case you are wondering.
grep is your friend.
Correct me if I'm wrong x00, but I don't think people are in violation when they sell licenses for Wordpress products. The whole market runs on naivete or honour - probably a mix of both. It proves a commercial market for GPL plugins is viable though, assuming there are enough non-expert consumers who prefer to buy 'off the shelf'.
People are being duped into buying individual 'site licenses' for GPL-derived products though. Sellers might not be violating any terms but they are deceiving their customers.
They are if it is proprietary. According to your links.
grep is your friend.
Why do you assume pure frameworks don't want contributors? They do and they get them.
I just think wordpress' recent legal foray is damaging. Not becuase of copyright issues which are valid, but the principle that resulted.
grep is your friend.
Indeed you're probably right. I'm guessing distributing the addon with the false claim of proprietorship is in itself is a violation.
I believe if you share it will two parties it is officially distributed and has to be open.
grep is your friend.
Aren't site licences violating the distribution principle anyway?
grep is your friend.
I think @businessdad would have something to say on this matter.
grep is your friend.
Caveat emptor and all that. Anybody can sell a GPL licensed product, as long as they comply with the distribution terms (modifications must be licensed as GPL, provide source code, etc.). There is nothing preventing a company from selling multiple copies to the same entity.
People just don't read the terms of use, license terms, or privacy terms. They get virtually nothing out of reading them and everything out of clicking next as fast as possible. This doesn't make it less important.
It does provide an opportunity for arbitrage to those that care about it.
Search first
Check out the Documentation! We are always looking for new content and pull requests.
Click on insightful, awesome, and funny reactions to thank community volunteers for their valuable posts.