On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 03:24:02PM -0400, M. Adam Davis wrote: > On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Byron Jeff = wrote: > > It's not possible to have a discussion about open licenses without talk= ing > > about GPL style licenses. > > I am perfectly capable of conversing with another engineer about > licensing issues without discussing the GPL. The fact that you cannot > only tends to show me that this is more a religious argument for you > than an engineering discussion. > This is discussion about open licenses per the original request "What hardware license has the least restrictions." > > Vitaliy specifically referenced the GPL in his > > original post with incorrect information. I was attempting to correct t= hat > > oversight as a part of the discussion. > > Whether the GPL is restrictive or not is a philosophical discussion. > You choose to believe that there are rights that are trampled on when > an end user gets ahold of hardware that is not licensed GPL. No. I was simply pointing out, again from the original request, that there is not a required publication of derivative works. It's difficult to have a discussion about anything unless the facts are straight. > > That is a belief that depends on the assumption that there are natural > human rights involved. The original request was discussing license restructions. In that discussion there are a set of rights that a license is designed to grant or limit: - The right to use the work. - The right to redistribute the work. - The right to modify the work. They are not natural. When an IP owner copyrights a work, all of these rights are reserved. So unless a license is granted, the work cannot be used, copied, or changed. So the license specifies under what conditions those rights are granted. Sounds like you think I said "For the work to be open, you must use the GPL." I never made any such claim. What I said was that the correct license is the one that defines to whom the above grants will be granted. Without specifying that priority, there's no way to determine the correct license. > The end user is free to not use a device that is not licensed > according to their needs. Someone who chooses a BSD style license is > NOT taking rights away that the end user previously held, nor are they > removing rights that one might consider natural human rights. You are correct. It simply does not grant the end user certain rights, that we agree are reserved by the copyright holder. However, by not granting those rights, the end user is restricted in their use of the work. Since the original request ask "What is the least restrictive license?" which is the same question as "What license grants the most rights?" then while the BSD does not "take away" any rights from the end use, it doesn't grant all the possible rights the end user could have either. > > "How quickly the world owes him something he knew existed only ten second= s ago" > > > There's no right answer to his original question. > > Of course there's a right answer to his question. He's quite explicit > about what he doesn't like about the most commonly suggested open > hardware license, and he's asking for something different. But his assertion is incorrect. While the GPL is most likely not the correct answer to the question, making that decision on incorrect information isn't a good thing to do. > Quite > frankly you're splitting hairs just so you can pontificate on why the > OP should consider the GPL when they obviously aren't interested in > it. > Nope. Just trying to correct an error. The original question is a bounded optimization problem. Like the BSD, or public domain, or the Open hardware license, or Creative Commons, or the ZPL, the GPL (and its derivatives) is one of the possible solutions to that bounded optimization problem. It cannot be dismissed on incorrect information. And I'm a professor. Pontificating is my job description. ;-) BAJ > > Every license that > > attempts to preserve the rights of one constiuency takes away rights fr= om > > another. So the question is to define "least restrictive to whom?". > > No. > > His question is, "I don't care about the users of MY users. I want to > give MY users the rights to do anything they want, including deny > THEIR users access to THEIR derivative products. What license allows > me to give EVERYONE who contacts me directly ALL the rights?" > > It's not "Who are the people I am concerned about?" > > Again, suggesting otherwise involves quite a convoluted interpretation > of his original, simple, question. You grabbed this opportunity to > preach about what rights the GPL provides (note, it doesn't protect > rights, it provides new rights), when the question specifically > indicates that he doesn't want those rights. > > > Developers vs. redistributors vs. derivers vs. end users is a zero sum = game > > in terms of usage rights. Add a right to one group takes away some righ= ts > > from another. > > This is incorrect, and the most common fallacy GPL advocates like to > use to bolster their argument. > > When one uses a, for lack of a better term, "public domain" style > license, all the rights TO THAT WORK are given to EVERYONE. > > If someone picks it up, uses it, and distributes it, they can choose > to deny their users the rights to their derivative works, but they > cannot deny the rights to the original work. No rights are taken > away. > > > BSD style licenses takes away some user rights. > > I hope by now you understand that the BSD license doesn't take away > any rights, nor does it redistribute rights among possible users. But > if you choose to believe differently, then you should realize it's a > belief, and not an engineering discussion. > > At best your argument is a different perspective on the idea of what > rights someone should receive once they get ahold of something they > didn't design themselves. It is largely a philosophical perspective. > > > Public domain is a redistributors/derivers dream. End users usually get > > slammed in the process. > > End users have access to the original, released code, just as the develop= er did. > > What rights were taken away? > > None. > > > The correct answer is to > > Choose a license that gives the developer what they want. > > Some developers want the GPL style. Some want the public domain > style. None are more intrinsically right or wrong than the other. > None of them take away rights from people that they should have > received prior to the originator choosing and releasing under a given > license. > > Once the originator chooses a license, according to their needs, > further developers down the line can't change the license the original > work is licensed under. A developer isn't removing a user's rights by > taking a BSD licensed item, changing it, then releasing it only in > binary form - the user still has all the original rights they were > granted by the originator when the original work was released. > > To emphasize the point - no rights are taken away from a person who > receives a BSD licensed work. No rights are taken away from a person > who receives a GPL licensed work. If anything, in both cases, those > people received NEW rights they did not have prior to the release of > the work. > > No rights are taken away when a person gets a binary of a BSD derived > work. If anything, they have both the rights to the BSD originated > work, and the rights to use the binary derived work in whatever way > the derivative creator gives them. No rights are being taken away - > they still have all the rights of the original work, and they are > being given additional rights according to the deriviate creator's > decisions. > > No rights are taken away when a person gets a binary of a GPL derived > work. If anything, they have both the rights to the GPL originated > work, and the rights to the GPL derived work. They are given these > rights - it's not as though they have rights that are being protected. > > Using phrases such as "protecting rights" is merely the same > propoganda and FUD that free software advocates appear to like to rail > against when others use similar techniques to preach their cause. > > -Adam > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist -- Byron A. Jeff Department Chair: IT/CS/CNET College of Information and Mathematical Sciences Clayton State University http://cims.clayton.edu/bjeff -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .