www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Re: [OT] open-source license issues

reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Kagamin Wrote:


 spir Wrote:
 

 There is a point I don't understand: if I'm right, LGPL as well as all other 
 "open source", not strictly free-software, licenses allow using licensed 
 software even for "privative" (proprietary) work. But they wouldn't allow
using 
 software for work licensed under other open-source licenses like the Boost
license?
 Where's the bug?



 They can be used, but they can't become proprietary or Boost licensed.



I also wander, what people plan to do with libmysql? It's GPL.
Apr 11 2011
next sibling parent reply Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Am 11.04.2011 17:40, schrieb Kagamin:

 Kagamin Wrote:
 

 spir Wrote:


 There is a point I don't understand: if I'm right, LGPL as well as all other 
 "open source", not strictly free-software, licenses allow using licensed 
 software even for "privative" (proprietary) work. But they wouldn't allow
using 
 software for work licensed under other open-source licenses like the Boost
license?
 Where's the bug?



 They can be used, but they can't become proprietary or Boost licensed.



 I also wander, what people plan to do with libmysql? It's GPL.



Doesn't mysql even have some retarded restriction like "it's GPL but may
not be used for commercial purposes so buy mysql if you wanna use it to
make money"?

Maybe someone has already reimplemented a mysql-client under a more free
license?

Also: I think most databases (and their libs) are under a license that
is not free enough for Phobos (SQLite is an exception - it's Public
domain - and thus can and should be shipped with Phobos).
So I guess Phobos' DB support should be written in a way that allows
plugging in a DB driver that is distributed independently and under a
different license (this makes sense anyway, because maintaining drivers
for dozens of databases in Phobos is too much work). Maybe we'd need
proper DLL support for that?
This model is used by ODBC and JDBC as well.

Cheers,
- Daniel
Apr 11 2011
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:io0blg$jsc$5 digitalmars.com...

 Am 11.04.2011 17:40, schrieb Kagamin:

 Kagamin Wrote:


 spir Wrote:


 There is a point I don't understand: if I'm right, LGPL as well as all 
 other
 "open source", not strictly free-software, licenses allow using 
 licensed
 software even for "privative" (proprietary) work. But they wouldn't 
 allow using
 software for work licensed under other open-source licenses like the 
 Boost license?
 Where's the bug?



 They can be used, but they can't become proprietary or Boost licensed.



 I also wander, what people plan to do with libmysql? It's GPL.



 Doesn't mysql even have some retarded restriction like "it's GPL but may
 not be used for commercial purposes so buy mysql if you wanna use it to
 make money"?

 Maybe someone has already reimplemented a mysql-client under a more free
 license?



PostgreSQL? ;)
Apr 11 2011
parent reply Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Am 12.04.2011 04:00, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:

 "Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:io0blg$jsc$5 digitalmars.com...

 Am 11.04.2011 17:40, schrieb Kagamin:

 Kagamin Wrote:


 spir Wrote:


 There is a point I don't understand: if I'm right, LGPL as well as all 
 other
 "open source", not strictly free-software, licenses allow using 
 licensed
 software even for "privative" (proprietary) work. But they wouldn't 
 allow using
 software for work licensed under other open-source licenses like the 
 Boost license?
 Where's the bug?



 They can be used, but they can't become proprietary or Boost licensed.



 I also wander, what people plan to do with libmysql? It's GPL.



 Doesn't mysql even have some retarded restriction like "it's GPL but may
 not be used for commercial purposes so buy mysql if you wanna use it to
 make money"?

 Maybe someone has already reimplemented a mysql-client under a more free
 license?



 PostgreSQL? ;)
 
 



Well I'd always use PostgreSQL instead of MySQL when having the choice, but
1. often MySQL needs to be used because it's already there
2. PostgreSQL uses the BSD-License which also isn't suitable for Phobos.

BTW: I think PHP has a native SQL driver (under their BSD-style PHP
license) - maybe that could be adapted to be used with D, if it's
written in C. This still couldn't be shipped with Phobos, but at least
there are no stupid restrictions on using it for commercial software.
Apr 11 2011
next sibling parent reply Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Am 12.04.2011 11:34, schrieb spir:

 On 04/12/2011 04:06 AM, Daniel Gibson wrote:

 Well I'd always use PostgreSQL instead of MySQL when having the
 choice, but
 1. often MySQL needs to be used because it's already there
 2. PostgreSQL uses the BSD-License which also isn't suitable for Phobos.

 BTW: I think PHP has a native SQL driver (under their BSD-style PHP
 license) - maybe that could be adapted to be used with D, if it's
 written in C. This still couldn't be shipped with Phobos, but at least
 there are no stupid restrictions on using it for commercial software.



 I don't understand this story of shipping, neither. It seems to me D's
 style rather pushes to reuse libs (esp written in C), that users (both
 programmer & end-user) are forced to install anyway. Licenses that allow
 reuse (and shipping) provided a copyright note is properly inserted do
 not change anything for me.
 
 Instead, I find this copyright note, not only *extremely* light, but
 also fair, and even nice. In my views, people who do not agree with that
 are the kinds who want to freely take from a community and give nothing
 back in exchange (rather corporations in fact); not even attribute their
 work to authors. Bad and sad :-(
 
 Denis



Yeah this is all fine when you use a third-party lib, but IMHO for a
standard-lib of a language such a copyright-note shouldn't be necessary.
It's not like you have to know that phobos uses zlib, for example.
Sure it's nice if you add to your README "I used the D programming
language and it's standardlib Phobos, which includes the zlib I used for
compression and SQLite for simple database stuff to create this", but it
shouldn't be necessary.
Apr 12 2011
parent spir <denis.spir gmail.com> writes:
On 04/12/2011 04:01 PM, Fawzi Mohamed wrote:

 For my personal libs/programs I fully agree with spir:

 1) attribution is a very light burden
 2) it is nice, and somehow the right thing to do
 3) it gives back at least a bit of advertisement to the stuff *you can use
freely*

 For those reasons I did release blip with an apache 2.0 license, by using it I
 can also easily integrate/use all kinds of free libraries,
 but it stays free, and usable also in commercial contexts.

 That said I think that having phobos using the Boost license, aside form "being
 nice for the user" it other subtle effects:
 yes it makes "standing on the shoulders of giants" more difficult, because you
 cannot as easily use other libraries,
 but exactly for that reason it forces one to rebuild things from scratch (or
 almost).
 For a *base* library, this is not necessarily a bad thing, it reduces
 dependencies, and might even give code that is more optimized.

 I think that there is space in D for other libraries, libraries that use
 licenses like apache 2.0 or BSD.
 Still I understand that the base library is boost licensed, it might not be my
 first choice for my own projects (I don't want to always
 develop everything from scratch), but it is a clear choice, and a choice that
 has its own merits.



Thanks to everyone, I know understand the point and the choice made for D, or 
rather Phobos. I still do not share the underlying opinion and would not do do 
that choice myself (find properly crediting someone for their work just a Good 
Thing, and no burden at all).
But at least, as Fawzi says, it's a clear choice; and I would not mind 
licensing under Boost potential contributions to Phobos.

Denis
-- 
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
Apr 12 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent spir <denis.spir gmail.com> writes:
On 04/12/2011 11:55 AM, Daniel Gibson wrote:

 Am 12.04.2011 11:34, schrieb spir:

 On 04/12/2011 04:06 AM, Daniel Gibson wrote:

 Well I'd always use PostgreSQL instead of MySQL when having the
 choice, but
 1. often MySQL needs to be used because it's already there
 2. PostgreSQL uses the BSD-License which also isn't suitable for Phobos.

 BTW: I think PHP has a native SQL driver (under their BSD-style PHP
 license) - maybe that could be adapted to be used with D, if it's
 written in C. This still couldn't be shipped with Phobos, but at least
 there are no stupid restrictions on using it for commercial software.



 I don't understand this story of shipping, neither. It seems to me D's
 style rather pushes to reuse libs (esp written in C), that users (both
 programmer&  end-user) are forced to install anyway. Licenses that allow
 reuse (and shipping) provided a copyright note is properly inserted do
 not change anything for me.

 Instead, I find this copyright note, not only *extremely* light, but
 also fair, and even nice. In my views, people who do not agree with that
 are the kinds who want to freely take from a community and give nothing
 back in exchange (rather corporations in fact); not even attribute their
 work to authors. Bad and sad :-(

 Denis



 Yeah this is all fine when you use a third-party lib, but IMHO for a
 standard-lib of a language such a copyright-note shouldn't be necessary.
 It's not like you have to know that phobos uses zlib, for example.
 Sure it's nice if you add to your README "I used the D programming
 language and it's standardlib Phobos, which includes the zlib I used for
 compression and SQLite for simple database stuff to create this", but it
 shouldn't be necessary.



Right, I now understand the point. But still find it an extremely light 
constraint: just put an "attributions.txt" into your package. Compare this 
constraint eg with makefile issues ;-)

Denis
-- 
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
Apr 12 2011
prev sibling parent Fawzi Mohamed <fawzi gmx.ch> writes:
For my personal libs/programs I fully agree with spir:

1) attribution is a very light burden
2) it is nice, and somehow the right thing to do
3) it gives back at least a bit of advertisement to the stuff *you can  
use freely*

For those reasons I did release blip with an apache 2.0 license, by  
using it I can also easily integrate/use all kinds of free libraries,
but it stays free, and usable also in commercial contexts.

That said I think that having phobos using the Boost license, aside  
form "being nice for the user" it other subtle effects:
yes it makes "standing on the shoulders of giants" more difficult,  
because you cannot as easily use other libraries,
but exactly for that reason it forces one to rebuild things from  
scratch (or almost).
For a *base* library, this is not necessarily a bad thing, it reduces  
dependencies, and might even give code that is more optimized.

I think that there is space in D for other libraries, libraries that  
use licenses like apache 2.0 or BSD.
Still I understand that the base library is boost licensed, it might  
not be my first choice for my own projects (I don't want to always
develop everything from scratch), but it is a clear choice, and a  
choice that has its own merits.

Fawzi

On 12-apr-11, at 15:34, spir wrote:


 On 04/12/2011 11:55 AM, Daniel Gibson wrote:

 Am 12.04.2011 11:34, schrieb spir:

 On 04/12/2011 04:06 AM, Daniel Gibson wrote:

 Well I'd always use PostgreSQL instead of MySQL when having the
 choice, but
 1. often MySQL needs to be used because it's already there
 2. PostgreSQL uses the BSD-License which also isn't suitable for  
 Phobos.

 BTW: I think PHP has a native SQL driver (under their BSD-style PHP
 license) - maybe that could be adapted to be used with D, if it's
 written in C. This still couldn't be shipped with Phobos, but at  
 least
 there are no stupid restrictions on using it for commercial  
 software.



 I don't understand this story of shipping, neither. It seems to me  
 D's
 style rather pushes to reuse libs (esp written in C), that users  
 (both
 programmer&  end-user) are forced to install anyway. Licenses that  
 allow
 reuse (and shipping) provided a copyright note is properly  
 inserted do
 not change anything for me.

 Instead, I find this copyright note, not only *extremely* light, but
 also fair, and even nice. In my views, people who do not agree  
 with that
 are the kinds who want to freely take from a community and give  
 nothing
 back in exchange (rather corporations in fact); not even attribute  
 their
 work to authors. Bad and sad :-(

 Denis



 Yeah this is all fine when you use a third-party lib, but IMHO for a
 standard-lib of a language such a copyright-note shouldn't be  
 necessary.
 It's not like you have to know that phobos uses zlib, for example.
 Sure it's nice if you add to your README "I used the D programming
 language and it's standardlib Phobos, which includes the zlib I  
 used for
 compression and SQLite for simple database stuff to create this",  
 but it
 shouldn't be necessary.



 Right, I now understand the point. But still find it an extremely  
 light constraint: just put an "attributions.txt" into your package.  
 Compare this constraint eg with makefile issues ;-)

 Denis
 -- 
 _________________
 vita es estrany
 spir.wikidot.com
Apr 12 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
On 4/11/2011 9:55 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:

 Doesn't mysql even have some retarded restriction like "it's GPL but may
 not be used for commercial purposes so buy mysql if you wanna use it to
 make money"?



According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysql) it's dual 
licensed GPL or proprietary.  (Actually it's a slightly modified GPL 
that's **less** restrictive than the vanilla one.)
Apr 11 2011
next sibling parent Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Am 12.04.2011 04:18, schrieb dsimcha:

 On 4/11/2011 9:55 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:

 Doesn't mysql even have some retarded restriction like "it's GPL but may
 not be used for commercial purposes so buy mysql if you wanna use it to
 make money"?



 According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysql) it's dual
 licensed GPL or proprietary.  (Actually it's a slightly modified GPL
 that's **less** restrictive than the vanilla one.)



Hmm.. seems like I've mixed up stuff, I only got my information via hearsay.

However I've looked it up: You can only use MySQL with closed source
software, when you buy a license. Even if you don't touch MySQL's code
itself, because the client library is also under GPL.
I *think* this could be fixed by a custom client library under another
license because then you wouldn't use or link any of MySQLs source but
just communicate with it via TCP or something.

MySQL's license is a bit less restrictive than the GPL, because you may
link it with *any* source using an OSI-Approved (Open Source) license
and not just GPL. That doesn't help with proprietary software, though.

See also: http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/index.html

Cheers,
- Daniel
Apr 11 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent =?UTF-8?B?IkrDqXLDtG1lIE0uIEJlcmdlciI=?= <jeberger free.fr> writes:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

spir wrote:

 On 04/12/2011 04:18 AM, dsimcha wrote:

 On 4/11/2011 9:55 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:

 Doesn't mysql even have some retarded restriction like "it's GPL but =










 not be used for commercial purposes so buy mysql if you wanna use it =










 make money"?



 According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysql) it's dual
 licensed
 GPL or proprietary. (Actually it's a slightly modified GPL that's
 **less**
 restrictive than the vanilla one.)



 There is a misconseption (or rather rethorical playing on words) in the=




 open-source argumentation versus free software: a license like BSD is
 said to be less restrictive. But in fact it is more privative to
 (end-)users, in that it allows direct users of the software to deprive
 them from rights that would have been guaranted by a free software lice=




=20



deprives them of the right to license *their own* code any way they
want (at least, LGPL does not have that restriction).

		Jerome
--=20
mailto:jeberger free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger jabber.fr
Apr 12 2011
prev sibling parent spir <denis.spir gmail.com> writes:
On 04/12/2011 08:19 PM, "Jérôme M. Berger" wrote:

 spir wrote:

 On 04/12/2011 04:18 AM, dsimcha wrote:

 On 4/11/2011 9:55 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:

 Doesn't mysql even have some retarded restriction like "it's GPL but may
 not be used for commercial purposes so buy mysql if you wanna use it to
 make money"?



 According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysql) it's dual
 licensed
 GPL or proprietary. (Actually it's a slightly modified GPL that's
 **less**
 restrictive than the vanilla one.)



 There is a misconseption (or rather rethorical playing on words) in the
 open-source argumentation versus free software: a license like BSD is
 said to be less restrictive. But in fact it is more privative to
 (end-)users, in that it allows direct users of the software to deprive
 them from rights that would have been guaranted by a free software license.



 deprives them of the right to license *their own* code any way they
 want (at least, LGPL does not have that restriction).

 		Jerome



True.

Denis
-- 
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
Apr 12 2011
prev sibling parent reply spir <denis.spir gmail.com> writes:
On 04/12/2011 04:18 AM, dsimcha wrote:

 On 4/11/2011 9:55 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:

 Doesn't mysql even have some retarded restriction like "it's GPL but may
 not be used for commercial purposes so buy mysql if you wanna use it to
 make money"?



 According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysql) it's dual licensed
 GPL or proprietary. (Actually it's a slightly modified GPL that's **less**
 restrictive than the vanilla one.)



There is a misconseption (or rather rethorical playing on words) in the 
open-source argumentation versus free software: a license like BSD is said to 
be less restrictive. But in fact it is more privative to (end-)users, in that 
it allows direct users of the software to deprive them from rights that would 
have been guaranted by a free software license.

Denis
-- 
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
Apr 12 2011
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"spir" <denis.spir gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.3427.1302601308.4748.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 On 04/12/2011 04:18 AM, dsimcha wrote:

 On 4/11/2011 9:55 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:

 Doesn't mysql even have some retarded restriction like "it's GPL but may
 not be used for commercial purposes so buy mysql if you wanna use it to
 make money"?



 According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysql) it's dual 
 licensed
 GPL or proprietary. (Actually it's a slightly modified GPL that's 
 **less**
 restrictive than the vanilla one.)



 There is a misconseption (or rather rethorical playing on words) in the 
 open-source argumentation versus free software: a license like BSD is said 
 to be less restrictive. But in fact it is more privative to (end-)users, 
 in that it allows direct users of the software to deprive them from rights 
 that would have been guaranted by a free software license.



Except such software is more likely to have just simply used some other 
library instead, something either more BSD-like or in-house proprietary. In 
other words, in actual practice, (L)GPL tends to discoruage people from 
actually making derivative works. So that still works against users gaining 
benefit from the software anyway.
Apr 12 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent spir <denis.spir gmail.com> writes:
On 04/12/2011 04:06 AM, Daniel Gibson wrote:

 Well I'd always use PostgreSQL instead of MySQL when having the choice, but
 1. often MySQL needs to be used because it's already there
 2. PostgreSQL uses the BSD-License which also isn't suitable for Phobos.

 BTW: I think PHP has a native SQL driver (under their BSD-style PHP
 license) - maybe that could be adapted to be used with D, if it's
 written in C. This still couldn't be shipped with Phobos, but at least
 there are no stupid restrictions on using it for commercial software.



I don't understand this story of shipping, neither. It seems to me D's style 
rather pushes to reuse libs (esp written in C), that users (both programmer & 
end-user) are forced to install anyway. Licenses that allow reuse (and 
shipping) provided a copyright note is properly inserted do not change anything 
for me.

Instead, I find this copyright note, not only *extremely* light, but also fair, 
and even nice. In my views, people who do not agree with that are the kinds who 
want to freely take from a community and give nothing back in exchange (rather 
corporations in fact); not even attribute their work to authors. Bad and sad :-(

Denis
-- 
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
Apr 12 2011
prev sibling parent reply Piotr Szturmaj <bncrbme jadamspam.pl> writes:
Kagamin wrote:

 Kagamin Wrote:


 spir Wrote:


 There is a point I don't understand: if I'm right, LGPL as well as all other
 "open source", not strictly free-software, licenses allow using licensed
 software even for "privative" (proprietary) work. But they wouldn't allow using
 software for work licensed under other open-source licenses like the Boost
license?
 Where's the bug?



 They can be used, but they can't become proprietary or Boost licensed.



 I also wander, what people plan to do with libmysql? It's GPL.



There's a FOSS license exception for MySQL client library:
http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/

Boost license is not on the list, but we may ask them to include it.

Anyway, I'm writing my PostgreSQL client without using libpq: 
http://github.com/pszturmaj/ddb

It's licensed under Boost 1.0 so it could be included into Phobos. I 
planned to write MySQL client without using client lib as well. However 
I'm not sure about stability of their protocol (in contrast to 
PostgreSQL's):

http://forge.mysql.com/wiki/MySQL_Internals_ClientServer_Protocol
Apr 12 2011
next sibling parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Piotr Szturmaj Wrote:


 I also wander, what people plan to do with libmysql? It's GPL.



 There's a FOSS license exception for MySQL client library:
 http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/
 
 Boost license is not on the list, but we may ask them to include it.



I believe, phobos is boost licensed in order to be corporations-friendly, which
will be impossible with inclusion of libmysql.
Apr 12 2011
prev sibling parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Piotr Szturmaj Wrote:


 http://forge.mysql.com/wiki/MySQL_Internals_ClientServer_Protocol



LOL, take a look at this:
http://forge.mysql.com/w/index.php?title=MySQL_Internals_ClientServer_Protocol&diff=5078&oldid=4374
Apr 12 2011
parent Piotr Szturmaj <bncrbme jadamspam.pl> writes:
Kagamin wrote:

 Piotr Szturmaj Wrote:


 http://forge.mysql.com/wiki/MySQL_Internals_ClientServer_Protocol



 LOL, take a look at this:
 http://forge.mysql.com/w/index.php?title=MySQL_Internals_ClientServer_Protocol&diff=5078&oldid=4374



That's ridiculous. I've just googled for "The MySQL Protocol is 
proprietary" and I've got this:

http://krow.livejournal.com/684068.html

Also take a look at comments... I fully agree with this one:

"MySQL's position on the protocol issue is pure, unadulterated BS. It is 
legal to reverse engineer protocols and file formats without the 
permission of the originator. See Open Office and Samba for two 
particularly widely known examples of this."
Apr 12 2011