WARNING: This server is unstable and will be retired in the next days.
If you want to keep this forum available, please request immediately a migration
on the Nabble Support forum.
Forums that don't receive any migration request will be deleted forever.
I've struggled with all of these things and more. There's no easy
answer, but there are some eminently practical questions you'll want
1. The R language is released under the GPL. Along come Revolution
Analytics *selling* "proprietary" tools based on R. While in technical
terms Revolution are adhering to the GPL, one of R's creators, Ross
Ikaha, feels like Revolution have "purloined" his work and are
profiting from his work while he receives no compensation.
2. Oracle vs. Google over Android
3. What resources do you have to pursue someone *in court* who
violates the terms of your license? In general the "violator" will
most likely be bigger than you are. ;-)
The minimum a license *must* do is protect you and all the ATLAS
project members from attack in the world's legal systems. As Oracle
vs. Google shows, that's not easy even when you have an army of IP
attorneys and billions of dollars as does Google. My recommendation is
to consult an attorney. He / she may advise creating an "entity" to
house the intellectual property before devising a license.
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Clint Whaley <whaley@...> wrote:
> For some time now I've been wrestling with the idea of changing ATLAS's
> license, and I'm hoping you can help me make a good choice. So, I'd
> like to open a discussion on what kind of free software license you would
> like to see ATLAS use going forward.
> Back when ATLAS first came out, there were basically two camps, which
> were the BSD and GNU camps. I always saw both sides of the argument:
> BSD matches better the scientific tradition: here's the knowledge,
> free for all. However, GNU said that openness and freedom are even
> more important than maximum access, so you can't do anything to remove them,
> and if you use it yourself, you usually have to contribute any advances
> you make. There are a lot more subtleties, of course, but that was the
> broad strokes of my thoughts at the time.
> I come from a scientific tradition, so BSD was more natural to me. The thing
> that finally decided me was that if you mix BSD and GNU, then the GNU
> overrides the BSD, which I found horribly coercive. I didn't mind coercing
> evil-doers, but the BSD types were my types, and I didn't like this
> bit of strong-arming. So, I released ATLAS with a BSD style license which
> both camps could easily use.
> When I chose the BSD license, there was no such thing as software patents. I
> believe software patents are the scourge of our profession. Because of them,
> everyone without literally millions of dollars is effectively a serf that is
> able to program only on the sufferance of our patent-wielding lords (even
> clearly invalid patents take millions to fight). In this world of incredibly
> destructive patent wars we are now in, it is clear to me that I want a license
> that addresses this national (and now international) disaster in at least
> some way.
> I'm looking around, and it seems to me their are still the same two camps
> with the same basic differences. The BSD camp is now called the Apache
> group, and GNU is still GNU.
> So, the obvious thing would be for me to change to the Apache 2 license,
> since it is closest to what I have and has some patent language.
> And yet, the more time has gone on, the more I've had to appreciate
> the principles behind GNU. I have seen that the worst corporate
> actors gravitate to the BSD license, and that they typically abuse it,
> and that they slander the GNU camp.
> I am not considering at all using the GPL: as the author of a library,
> I do not want to force people to change their own projects to make
> use of it. However, I am seriously thinking of switching to the LGPLv3.
> I'm a little concerned, because there are parts of it I cannot extract
> meaning from, and that worries me. For instance:
> If you modify a copy of the Library, and, in your modifications, a
> facility refers to a function or data to be supplied by an Application
> that uses the facility (other than as an argument passed when the
> facility is invoked), then you may convey a copy of the modified
> Then there are parts that just seem strange like:
> You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with
> a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which
> you make payment ....
> I see this is something against Novell/MS patent covenent, but why is it
> restricted to businesses that distribute software?
> I'm sure all these answers are right out there on the web, so educational
> links are welcome!
> Anyway, right now, the three main contenders are status quo (BSD), Apache 2,
> and LGPLv3. I would greatly appreciate hearing your pro/con on them.
> I am highly motivated to try to address patents in some way, so BSD right
> now is not looking good to me, so if it is important to you, you'd better
> talk to me about it!
> The apache patent clause seems incredibly weak to me, unfortunately.
> It appears to say that if you sue someone over a patent in the software,
> that you lose the right to use other contributors patents. Since I think
> owning software patents is morally wrong, and almost everyone I know doing
> real development work owns 0 software patents, this seems pretty useless
> for individuals (I see why a corporation would like it). Why doesn't use
> of the copyrighted software constitute an agreement not to sue anyone
> over patents involved in the use of the software (be a violation of the
> *copyright* license)? Am I reading that wrong?
> Even LGPL's patent language is not hard-core enough for me, but they
> address it in the preamble where they say this is as much as they
> think they can do. Their language seems to say that if you are using
> the patent to prohibit others using the software then you never had a right
> to use the software in the first place, not just that your patent rights
> are severed.
> Anyway, I have many areas of ignorance and concern, but let me leave it
> there for now. If you care about ATLAS's license, now is the time to
> make your voice heard. If you've dreamed of LGPL, please tell me why.
> If BSD or Apache is the way to go, please share your reasoning. If you
> work at a company, and a switch to certain licenses would hurt you,
> I want to hear about it, and why it is that it would hurt.
> Finally, please point me at other licenses you think are worth considering
> (I want to use a fairly standard one to make it easy on other free software
> If you know others people with an interest in the license ATLAS uses
> who do not usually read the developer list, please feel free to cross-post
> that I'm asking these questions and want to hear from them.
> Many thanks,
> ** R. Clint Whaley, PhD ** Assist Prof, UTSA ** www.cs.utsa.edu/~whaley **
> Special Offer -- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE!
> Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better
> price-free! And you'll get a free "Love Thy Logs" t-shirt when you
> download Logger. Secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsisghtdev2dev > _______________________________________________
> Math-atlas-devel mailing list
> Math-atlas-devel@... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/math-atlas-devel >