I created a google code project for the artfulcode modules. If anyone is interested in contributing, shoot me an email (jeffober@gmail.com). I'd love to have some other skill sets involved in the code.
http://code.google.com/p/actools-newlisp/
I will. I'd love to contribute. There must be a skill set I can find. :)
Either post or email me your google account email address and I'll add you.
hi -
i see the modules you are contributing are under the mit license? as you know, newLISP uses the gpl license and i am curious as to why you would not want to release these modules under the gpl? thanks!
It is GPL-compatible, and is more permissive. The MIT license hits less resistance at proprietary companies, as it makes no demands on the license of derivative code. I don't mind the GPL, but I am not a strong believer in it. It's more important to me that the code is widely available and usable in any project than it is that it is free in the GPL sense of the term.
Quote from: "Jeff"
Can you dual license the code so I can use it under the two-clause BSD license?
How does that work? I offer a version under either license? Is the MIT license not compatible with the BSD license?
Quote from: "Jeff"
You just post a note saying the code can be distributed under the MIT or the two-clause BSD license. (I think it is called the ISC license these days)
From the Wikipedia page:
Quote
The MIT License is similar to the 3-clause "modified" BSD license, except that the BSD license contains a notice prohibiting the use of the name of the copyright holder in promotion. This is sometimes present in versions of the MIT License, as noted above.
The original BSD license also includes a clause requiring all advertising of the software to display a notice crediting its authors. This "advertising clause" (since disavowed by UC Berkeley[6]) is only present in the modified MIT License used by XFree86.
The MIT License states more explicitly the rights given to the end-user, including the right to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell the software.
A 2-clause BSD-style license used by FreeBSD (and preferred for NetBSD) is essentially identical to the MIT License, as it contains neither an advertising clause, nor a promotional use of copyright holder's name prohibition.
Also similar in terms is the ISC license, which has a simpler language.
So there you have it; the ISC license is like the MIT license but even simpler. Less text to cut'n'paste, etc. ISC is the standard for new code in OpenBSD, and is becoming so for the other BSDs.
According to Wikipedia, the ISC license is functionally equivalent to the 2-clause BSD license, with language "made unnecessary by the Berne convention" removed. It has been the preferred license for OpenBSD since June 2003.
Here is the template of the ISC license:
Quote
Copyright (c) Year(s), Company or Person's Name <E>
Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
Quote from: "Jeff"
for the distributor, of course, but not end users, of the larger group which we all are a part.
Quote from: "Jeff"
im guessing this is a concern of your own? i dont see the value of taking newLISP (gpl) and forking a module for it into a different license, thus destroying the guaranteed end user value of this contributed module from remaining for future users/developers.
personally, and i understand this is my opinion, i wouldnt understand why anyone (other than a proprietary distributor/developer/webservicer) would want to contribute to, and collaborate for, a non-copyleft module for newLISP.
Quote from: "Jeff"
i think code is most useful when it can be reused most, i.e., entire freedom to further it, having finally, and fully, received it.
The GPL imposes many restraints on what code may be used for. I am unconcerned about the possibility of someone "stealing" my code for a proprietary product and not releasing their changes. I am more interested in the code being, to my own mind, truly free.
Without wanting to get too much into a debate about the GPL, I feel that code is truly free if others may use it as they see fit, without imposing any restrictions on them. The end user is completely free to use it in any way, so long as they don't, 1) remove the license notice, 2) expect a a warranty.
I am not extending newLISP in any way; I am writing software *with* newLISP, which is not restricted by the GPL, nor do I owe the community any guarantee as to how my software may be used.
The GPL makes sense for many projects. For my purposes, it does not.
Quote from: "Jeff"
i understand you, though i dont discount potential in possibility.
Quote from: "Jeff"
nor do i want to debate. i truly want to know if you understand that you are saying that you want the end user to be free to use the code, though you are allowing a middleman to deny end users access to even read the code. from your hands to another is one step, but code moves quickly, from hand to hand, as you well know.
if i am mistaken in my statement above, it would be that you are concerned only with how the code leaves your hands, not a concern for how all end users recieve your code. if this second guess is the correct one, then i am clear about your gift of code.
thank you for your response. i certainly appreciate and have respect for you giving your code to others.
Lutz: it seems that the GPL is holding back the adoption of newLISP by people. What are the benefits that outweigh this (to my mind) major disadvantage?
I understand that some other scripting languages have more flexible licences that allow people more freedom to work and develop in their own chosen way... Is it not possible to provide a modified licence that allows these others more freedom to develop newLISP-related solutions while preserving any rights that you want to retain?
(I speak as a novice in all things licence; I'm happy for anybody to do anything with my stuff...)
Why would that hold back people from using the language? It would only hold people back from extending the language themselves and re-branding it proprietorially.
I don't know, but it appears that it stops some people from using the language to develop their own applications...
I doubt it. It just means that any application which uses the actual newLISP source must be GPL as well, as a derivative work.
I just decided that it was not important to me that someone "borrowing" my code release those modifications as open source as well. It is different for a programming language vs libraries written in that language.
Quote
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 8:41 PM
To: farber@cis.upenn.edu
You will often hear people say that the GPL does not allow use of the
code in commercial software. This is a subtle confusion.
The GPL does not make any distinction between commercial and
noncommercial software development. It allows businesses to do all
the same things that individuals and schools are allowed to do.
However, the GPL does forbid use of the code in *proprietary*
(non-free) software. The GPL does not allow adding any additional
restrictions to any program that includes the code. So any program
that incorporates the GPL-covered code, whether it be commercial,
academic, or avocational, must be released as free software. As a
whole, it must be released under the GPL (though you can put a more
lax GPL-compatible license such as X11 on the parts you write, if you
wish).
I think that people who say the GPL disallows commercial software are
probably saying "commercial" but actually thinking "proprietary". But
while they may understand the GPL rightly, lumping together commercial
software and proprietary software is a grave mistake. There is plenty
of noncommercial non-free software. There is also commercial free
software--and we want to encourage more.
If we want to encourage people to write commercial free software,
first of all we should make sure they know it is a conceivable thing.
So let's not use terminology which implies it is impossible!
Note, the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation are not
associated with "open source". We are part of the Free Software
Movement, not the Open Source Movement. For more explanaion,
see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html.
-------------
I respect Lutz using the GPL, he has freely given us this software called newLISP (under the terms of the GPL), for our use... He has spent many years of his life creating newLISP... It costs us only the time we take to learn how to use it... Thank you sir...
So why can't you create an application that you give away as part of your business plan??? You do have a business plan ;)
And, if someone else gives away your application, under the terms of the GPL, think of it as FREE advertising! The more people that are exposed to your product, the more people that will want your advice and expertise that you sell... As for profit books, training, seminars, personal access, etc...
Face the facts, do any of you buy much, if any, software these days? And if you do, do you like it very much? Is try before you buy limited use crapware er. "shareware" even worth downloading today?
Under the terms of the GPL, if you improve the newLISP code, you give it back, for all of us to benefit from, as you do from the work of others who have given back before... The fact is, if you steal code, and keep it as your own, you also keep all the flaws and limitations... That YOU and you alone must fix for your customers... And you have nobody to turn to to help you fix it, because you stole the code...
In the long term, you get a better product the more eyes you have using and reviewing it... A closed source newLISP would not be half the valuable program it is today, or even a tenth of what it can become in the future...
Why wouldn't you want that same benefit for your code?
(Now feel free to attack my foolish idealism ;)
-- xytroxon
Quote from: "cormullion"
i would say that, in the long run, Lutz has been smartest and most helpful to release newLISP under the gplv3. the gpl *is* the benefit of nL, as other languages have yet to realize. linux is a supreme example of attracting talent to help develop broadly and rapidly.
Quote from: "cormullion"
they are more flexible, as spoken above in this thread, for the programmer / distributor / proprietor, but for a community, non-copyleft licensing isnt ideal. i think Jeff said it precisely:
Quote from: "Jeff"
the gpl prevents code from the black hole effect where contributed code can be removed and withheld from the community (bsd/mit type licensings allow black holing code).
licensing is really an issue of gathering support through trust: ensuring any contributor that his or her work will remain freely contributed to all.
its always a personal decision, but i would not want to contribute my help to a project that allows others to withhold my contributions and help from the person that ends up with the software. through time, i think that a lot of developers are going to realize that the gpl is a good idea because their own code cant be withheld from their own grandchildren. :0)
cormullion, does this make good sense and/or is does this at least clarify what can and cannot be done with gpl/copyleft code from code that is not?
I'm assuming that people don't want to modify newLISP itself, but want to write some application running on top of newLISP that they want to sell, to make a living from their own programming efforts. I know that this is already done by some developers.
For example, I know of one shareware product that consists of a big chunk of Python code, plus lots of open source components, and no doubt lots of proprietary Objective C code too to bind it all together. There must be other products like this, especially from indie developers. I don't think anyone loses out - software's being purchased (*), Python's being used, the community gets feedback from developers, stuff gets tested in real-world situations, users get products built on good foundations, developers get paid and can stop working for evil corporations, etc. It appears to me, a layperson, that this situation is one that newLISP would prosper in. At least, it doesn't appear to have damaged Python.
I realise that I hijacked this thread, and that it has nothing to do with jeff's modules; it was just that I was reading something on a thread about how someone couldn't write commercial software with newLISP, which seemed a outcome that wasn't ideal. It seems like more people lose out the GPL way, although perhaps the moral highground is safely attained.
But note that I'm probably playing devil's advocate a bit - I don't personally have anything to license... :)
(*) I certainly wouldn't agree that all commercial/shareware products are not worth paying money for. At least, that hasn't been my experience on the Mac.
Quote from: "cormullion"
[...]
I realise that I hijacked this thread, and that it has nothing to do with jeff's modules; it was just that I was reading something on a thread about how someone couldn't write commercial software with newLISP, which seemed a outcome that wasn't ideal. It seems like more people lose out the GPL way, although perhaps the moral highground is safely attained.
as xytroxon pointed out above, i dont think there is any problem writing commercial code w/ newLISP.
in fact, i think that Jeff's modules can be boxed and sold w/out source code for $$.
For those not so familiar with the implications of the GPL, I listed some cases in