[License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing pages

Tzeng, Nigel H. Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
Mon Jun 11 23:09:31 UTC 2012

On 6/11/12 6:20 PM, "Rick Moen" <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:

>Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu):
>> Again, whatever your self identification is, your comment and statement
>> are those espoused by one of those camps over the years.
>No, they most certainly are not.  Kindly do not confuse me with some
>bunch of ideologue wankers.

Kindly don't tell me what I've read over the years.

>> What was the value of this observation?
>That differently licenced derivatives in compliance with your
>requirements are seen as OK if proprietary and hence shut off from
>sharing under the same terms, but not OK if copyleft and hence shut off
>from sharing under the same terms -- which seems to me a prime example of
>failing to grasp _either_ of the two basic facts about copyright law and
>software I mentioned to Ben Tilly:  (1) People can and do perform pretty
>much whatever screwball actions they wish to perform with their own
>property.  (2) You should take care to understand all of the
>implications of any licence you use, because somebody else definitely
>may, and you'll look really silly acting surprised.

What makes you think folks were surprised vs disappointed?

Why does their being disappointed about it make them look silly?

I think that everyone involved understood fully what was happening and
why.  Folks choose permissive licenses because they want the widest
possible reuse.  The hope would have been folks that also believe in open
source would reciprocate.  I suppose hoping that might have been a little

There was no misunderstanding of the legality or the terms of the license.
 It is odd that you would characterize this in as negative a way as
possible.  They weren't silly, nor did they fail to grasp anything "basic".

The gist of the BSD position has always been "Of course that's legal, it's
just not very nice."

No license can compel people to be nice.  If they have to be compelled
they wouldn't be nice, just compliant.

>_Unlike_ ideologue wankers, I have no wish to urge any particular
>licensing on anyone, and regard with particular distaste those who do.

I don't know why you keep restating this.  I never said that you did and
wholeheartedly agree with you.

Most reasonable folks are license agnostic and view licenses as tools.

>Sorry you didn't like it.  Have a nice day.
>> Yes, disingenuous.
>I have no time for someone who gratuitously accuses me of bad faith --
>and also no interest in arguing with you in the first place.  Kindly
>go bother somebody else.  Thanks.

Tough.  GPL is and always has been the license involved in these disputes.
 Claiming that there are other copyleft licenses is simply evading that
point.  Therefore disingenuous.  I note that you didn't actually provide
another copyleft license example nor dispute my assertion regarding the


Your original comment struck me as a dismissive and mischaracterization of
others point of view.  Something that you continued in this response.

Sorry you didn't like it.  Have a nice day.  Well, no, not really...but I
will stop bugging you about it now that the point is made.  I hope that
you grasp it.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list