>I should think it is fairly similar, however it was constructed by lawyers specifically
>to ensure commercial use and standardisation was possible since the developers
>were both commercial users and participants in the C++ standardisation process
>intending to develop libraries for both uses.
But since my main reason is patents, and that license doesn't mention patents
in anyway, I don't see what the use is?
>>> If you take the GNU path you're
>>> *endorsing* the kind of legal system that also supports software
>>> patents and authoritarianism.
>> You will have explain that, because I truly see no logical way to reach
>> that conclusion.
>If you outright reject the right of any body to govern or own
>any kind of intellectual property, then you would not be able to leverage
>copyright laws to establish "copyleft". If you choose to simply make source
>code available freely without legal nonsense, you are to some extent
>denying such authority as opposed to endorsing it.
I don't think that even begins to fly. In any event, it is software patents
that I think are entirely bogus and a wholly a bad. Copyright is a completely
>> I don't mind people using ATLAS in proprietary products, but I must admit
>> I'd like to get some credit and I would hope they would contribute
>> patches, etc., since they are benefiting from that work.
>The question is whether you would attempt to enforce that requirement
>via the legal system (i.e. chose a GNU licence) and thereby exclude
>the incorporation of derived works into closed source software.
Not denying incorporation is why there's a LGPL vs. GPL.
>Please see the "quotation marks" around the word "forced", it wasn't
>meant literally. Perhaps I could have explained this better.
Yes, to my poor eyes you seem to have gotten the forced backwards :)
>> Apple appears to me to be a primary example of this: suing everyone for
>> BS like software & design patents, acquiring more patents to lock out
>> others from compitition, using open source software but never giving
>> back to it except where such a gift is to their exclusive benefit.
>Yes, however consider this: has Linux been successful breaking Microsofts
>stronghold on the OS market? No. It has a nice niche market.
Depends on where you sit. In HPC, MS is niche and linux is overwhelmingly
dominant (something >90% of the top500 machines run linux). If you look
at servers, MS is not dominant (good mix of linux, MS, and even old-school
unix). I think you are talking about desktop/laptop use where MS is
>Has Apple? No, but it is well on the way, by choosing to provide the "Mac"
>GUI interface for consumers but Unix underneath for techno-geeks including
>much of the open source software base.
Last time I checked, the number of Mac OS users on the desktop was roughly
the same percentage as Linux, but I'm not sure what this has to do with
anything . . .
>> I am also considering that in a world where many developers are controlled
>> by sociopathic corporations, it is necessary to put restrictions on your
>> software so that it is not used by those corporations to destroy the
>> freedom of others to develop code. When they are willing to so nakedly
>> restrain the freedom of others, it becomes more important to make sure
>> your contributions do not help them destroy what you believe in.
>Of course that is your judgement, because you are also preventing others
>who may agree with your view of these corporations but choose to use
>a different licence from using your software.
That will obviously depend on the license and what they are doing.
>Oh .. and of course .. you aren't preventing those corporations doing what
>they like, just making it illegal (which is not the same as preventing them
>unless you can fund a suitable action against them if they do indeed
>violate your licence).
Even though corps often ignore laws, it is usually a risk assessment.
>The problem I would have with LGPL is that if I build an interface to LGPL
>software it is a derived work and must be open source. I don't care about
>that myself but it means my software *using* that interface is less appealing
>to my target audience which is everyone *including closed source commercial
>developers*. I want my software to be FFAU (free for any use). To maintain
>that status I cannot permit any software included (in the core) to be
>tainted with (L)GPL like licences.
Something like this was how I came to use BSD in the first place. The fact
that it forced BSD to change its license along with forcing the corps to
do things irritated me. However, I do see why they do what the do, and
I haven't seen any better approach for stopping anti-social behavior
that is easier on other types of free software, unfortunately.
>In fact my core product uses Ocaml, and Ocaml uses libraries with
>LGPL "with linking exception" licence: a special exception is made
>to allow static linkage of library code without impediment.
Thanks very much for this pointer! If I do decide to change to the
LGPL, it is clear I would need to make *at least* that modification to
it. I've downloaded ocaml and scoped how it made the relaxation.
>> However, the LGPL would require that we pass this requirement along as
>> an obligation to our customers.
>That's the problem I see in a nutshell. It's not the users of ATLAS that
>care but *their* users.
OK, so the problem that you guys are bringing out is this:
(1) You use ATLAS in a library that you sell to company B
(2) Company B gets a license to sell you library bundled with theirs, but
because they are redistributing the ATLAS you have modified, then they
must make your ATLAS source available?