Artful Code modules

[Jeff]

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/">http://code.google.com/p/actools-newlisp/

[cormullion]

I will. I'd love to contribute. There must be a skill set I can find. :)

[Jeff]

Either post or email me your google account email address and I'll add you.

[joejoe]

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!

[Jeff]

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.

[TedWalther]

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.

Can you dual license the code so I can use it under the two-clause BSD license?

[Jeff]

How does that work? I offer a version under either license? Is the MIT license not compatible with the BSD license?

[TedWalther]

How does that work? I offer a version under either license? Is the MIT license not compatible with the BSD license?

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:

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.

[TedWalther]

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:

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.

[joejoe]

It is GPL-compatible, and is more permissive.

for the distributor, of course, but not end users, of the larger group which we all are a part.

The MIT license hits less resistance at proprietary companies, as it makes no demands on the license of derivative code.

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.

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.

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.

[Jeff]

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.

[joejoe]

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.

i understand you, though i dont discount potential in possibility.

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.

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.

[cormullion]

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...)

[Jeff]

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.

[cormullion]

I don't know, but it appears that it stops some people from using the language to develop their own applications...