Markus Kuhn | 4 Jul 10:28 2001
Picon
Picon

Re: Luit and screen [was: anti-luit]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Robert de Bath wrote:
> On 1 Jul 2001, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > RB> Tho I do agree that luit should be integrated into screen eventually.
> > Impossible for licensing reasons.  I should hope that luit will get
> > into the XFree86 tree.
> Shame, I assume you're using code that has to stay under the MIT licence.

This GPLphobia is getting completely ridiculous. The very notion of "code
that has to stay under the MIT licence" is a contradiction in itself. Do
you guys out there ever actually read the licences that you make such a
fuzz about? Hats off to the Microsoft Psychological Warfare Project; the
new anti-GPL paranoia-amplification drugs they've administered to our
water supplies over the last three years actually work better than anyone
ever expected!

Of course you can contribute MIT licence code to GPL projects without any
problems whatsoever. Of course our code doesn't become GPLed by that.
You still can use it in your own commercial products afterwards and give
others the right to do so. Of course you as the author of GPL or MIT code
can give away the same program under any other possible licence, as you
please. You can even add LGPLed code to MIT-licences code without anything
bad happening to either.

The GPL is an absolutely fabulous idea, but since there is so much
unjustified phobia around it, I'd recommed to donate anything that you
produce related to support the use of UTF-8 under POSIX to the public
domain (as I did with all my font and other UCS things on my web pages).
This seems to maximise impact in other projects as it takes away the fuel
from any potential licence discussion.

(Continue reading)

Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS | 4 Jul 10:57 2001

Re: Luit and screen [was: anti-luit]

Markus Kuhn <mgk25 <at> cam.ac.uk>:

> The GPL is an absolutely fabulous idea, but since there is so much
> unjustified phobia around it, I'd recommed to donate anything that you
> produce related to support the use of UTF-8 under POSIX to the public
> domain (as I did with all my font and other UCS things on my web pages).
> This seems to maximise impact in other projects as it takes away the fuel
> from any potential licence discussion.

Another possibility is to write that your code may be distributed
under <licence of your choice> or GPL. Then people don't have to waste
time discussing whether <licence of your choice> is GPL-compatible or
not. Perl is distributed this way.

Edmund
-
Linux-UTF8:   i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive:      http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/

Pablo Saratxaga | 4 Jul 11:56 2001

Re: Luit and screen [was: anti-luit]

Kaixo!

On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 09:28:28AM +0100, Markus Kuhn wrote:

> You can even add LGPLed code to MIT-licences code without anything
> bad happening to either.

Not exactly, you can *link* code under LGPL with MIT-licences code.
But you cannot put LGPL code in a same file with other non (L)GPL code.

However, the problem of doing so is that the package becomes very complex,
licence-wise, as different files would have different licences, and it
will be a nightmare. So in practice it is not done, and instead use of
LGPL code is rather done trough libraries API.

--

-- 
Ki ça vos våye bén,
Pablo Saratxaga

http://www.srtxg.easynet.be/		PGP Key available, key ID: 0x8F0E4975
-
Linux-UTF8:   i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive:      http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/

Robert de Bath | 4 Jul 21:39 2001
Picon

Re: Luit and screen [was: anti-luit]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Markus Kuhn wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Robert de Bath wrote:
> > On 1 Jul 2001, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > > RB> Tho I do agree that luit should be integrated into screen eventually.
> > > Impossible for licensing reasons.  I should hope that luit will get
> > > into the XFree86 tree.
> > Shame, I assume you're using code that has to stay under the MIT licence.
>
> This GPLphobia is getting completely ridiculous. The very notion of "code
> that has to stay under the MIT licence" is a contradiction in itself. Do
Oops, I just went back to the GNU site; wrong licence.
The _X11_ licence is compatible with the GPL ...
so what's the problem Juliusz? You won't be using GPL code from outside
in luit so there's no 'infection'.

> fuzz about? Hats off to the Microsoft Psychological Warfare Project; the
> new anti-GPL paranoia-amplification drugs they've administered to our
> water supplies over the last three years actually work better than anyone
> ever expected!
<grin>

--

-- 
Rob.                          (Robert de Bath <robert$  <at>  debath.co.uk>)
                                       <http://www.cix.co.uk/~mayday>

-
Linux-UTF8:   i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive:      http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/

(Continue reading)

Tomohiro KUBOTA | 5 Jul 04:04 2001
Picon

Re: Luit and screen [was: anti-luit]

Hi,

At Wed, 4 Jul 2001 20:39:30 +0100 (BST),
Robert de Bath <robert$ <at> mayday.cix.co.uk> wrote:

> Oops, I just went back to the GNU site; wrong licence.
> The _X11_ licence is compatible with the GPL ...
> so what's the problem Juliusz? You won't be using GPL code from outside
> in luit so there's no 'infection'.

X11 license is compatible with the GPL.  This means X11-licensed softwares
can be used as a basis of GPL-ed softwares.  However, softwares of GNU
Project will have to be assigned to FSF.  (Note the difference between
merely GPL-ed softwares and GNU Project softwares.)  This FSF's way is
to guard itself legally.  Dual license will not help this situation.

OTOH, GPL-ed softwares cannot be included in XFree86 source tree, as
Juliusz said.

Thus, I think Juliusz's way (luit in X11 license) is reasonable.

---
Tomohiro KUBOTA <kubota <at> debian.org>
http://www.debian.or.jp/~kubota/
"Introduction to I18N"  http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/intro-i18n/
-
Linux-UTF8:   i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive:      http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/

(Continue reading)

David Starner | 5 Jul 05:08 2001

Re: Luit and screen [was: anti-luit]

> X11 license is compatible with the GPL.  This means X11-licensed softwares
> can be used as a basis of GPL-ed softwares.  However, softwares of GNU
> Project will have to be assigned to FSF.  (Note the difference between
> merely GPL-ed softwares and GNU Project softwares.)  This FSF's way is
> to guard itself legally.  Dual license will not help this situation.

I'm not sure the FSF is as intractable as is often assumed. If integrating
luit and screen is a project of interest, and Juliusz is willing to do so,
luit and screen could possibly be integrated and the result distributed
under an X11-license. There is precedence - see ncurses - and the FSF has
always encouraged cooperation with X11 developers under X licenses. I'm also
not sure that screen couldn't use luit and not worry about it - again, the
FSF uses, distributes and helps develop a lot of software without being the
sole copyright owner. If Juliusz and the maintainer of screen wanted better
intergration, I would be surprised if the FSF was the obstructing factor.

Of course, it's entirely possible that Juliusz or the screen maintainer is
not interested in such a project. Then this is a moot point.

Bruno Haible | 5 Jul 15:07 2001
Picon

Re: Luit and screen [was: anti-luit]

Tomohiro KUBOTA writes:

> However, softwares of GNU Project will have to be assigned to FSF.
> (Note the difference between merely GPL-ed softwares and GNU Project
> softwares.)  This FSF's way is to guard itself legally.

This is not true in this generality. There are packages in the GNU
project whose copyright stays with the authors (like GNU clisp). There
are also packages in the GNU project whose copyright is assigned to
the FSF (like GNU GCC and glibc).

The most important point for software that is part of the GNU project
is that it cooperates well with the rest of the system, i.e. most
importantly that it supports --help and --version command line option,
uses GNU infrastructure like autoconf where possible, imposes no
arbitrary limitations on the users, and mentions the GNU project on
their homepage.

> GPL-ed softwares cannot be included in XFree86 source tree, as
> Juliusz said.
> 
> Thus, I think Juliusz's way (luit in X11 license) is reasonable.

Still it seems strange to put a tty based filter program in the X11
distribution. This means that people who use a console and have no X
installed cannot use it.

Bruno
-
Linux-UTF8:   i18n of Linux on all levels
(Continue reading)


Gmane