Re: [Axiom-legal] Fwd: [Axiom-developer] Re: [open-axiom-devel] [fricas-devel] umlaut in Guess - mailing list for algebra

[Frederic Lehobey]

Hi,

Bill Page <address@hidden> (2007-09-08 16:46:20) :
> On 9/5/07, Frederic Lehobey wrote:
> > Bill Page 2007-09-04 20:23:20) :
> >
> > >                                          GPL specifically says that
> > > the full source of the software must be available to *all* -
> > > even corporations.
> >
> > This is not correct. Please read it.
> 
> Of course I have read it.
> 
> > In short words, GPL requires availability of source code to
> > *users* of the software. Saying it requires *public* disclosure
> > is old FUD.
> 
> I don't understand the distinction you are making. To me you have just
> said the same thing that I said.

Maybe I misunderstood what you wrote. The distinction I am making is
that the GPL does not require you to make a *public* disclosure of the
changes you made to the GPLed program. I can think of scenarii where a
company (or other) makes changes to a GPLed software. It does not have
to publish the changes *on the web* but can keep them private. And if
it distributes the software to its clients, in compliance with the
GPL, it has only to give the source to its clients (and not to the
public). (Of course clients have the right to disclose the software on
the web, if they want, but it might not always be their best
interest).

Saying GPL requires public disclosure is a common misconception about
the GPL and often used as FUD against the use of the license. Maybe
you were not meaning this at all. Sorry then.

>                                    I am talking about "use" in the
> sense of incorporating some GPL software into a new package which I
> assume that one intends to distribute - otherwise these comments are
> just empty.

> > APL2 is neither free (as in freedom) nor open source software.
> 
> I do not know what definition of "open source" you are using but I

Well, the one of the people who coined the word (if I do not mistake):
http://www.opensource.org/

> certainly agree that it is not free (as in freedom). But neither is
> GPL. You are not free to use GPL software anyway you like. It is

Well, I suppose I shall read "use" as you said above. Otherwise, you
can use (not distribute) a GPL software the way you want. The major
restriction of the of GPL is that you cannot *distribute* a GPLed
software in a proprietary way. Or, in other words, you cannot
distribute the software with less freedoms than the ones you were
given by the GPL (hence its incompatibility with licences more
restrictive than the GPL). Or, in short, you cannot 'take away'
freedoms from GPL software.

> specifically limited so that you may only use GPL software in a manner
> which is considered to be beneficial to making more software open in
> the same way via the copyleft provisions. As far as I can see, the
> lack of freedom in APL2 is similar in magnitude but quite different in
> intent.

I disagree. APL2 puts more restrictions on use (not only distribution)
and discriminates between users.

> > I do not understand what makes you so enthusiastic about it. Nothing new
> > under the sun.
> >
> 
> I am enthusiastic about the fact that Aldor source code is now easily
> available under a license that will allow me (and presumably other
> interested people) to make improvements to it and to use it in my work
> without the fear that someday my investment in this work may no longer
> be available to me. Prior to APL2 this was only possible by making a
> special request to aldor.org and the future was much less certain. Now
> all I have to do is go to the aldor.org website and download it from
> the svn repository. The rest of this license stuff is mostly
> irrelevant until or unless it actually gets in the way of some thing
> that I or some other new Aldor  or Axiom developer really wants to do
> with it. At this time I am certainly not interested in any possible
> commercial uses Aldor. Perhaps other people are...

It prevents integration of Aldor in free software distributions as
Debian or Fedora. (The kind of things I am interested in.)

Anyway, Aldor is by no standard open source or free software. I have
personally been trapped in the past in such non-free licences. I will
never consider again non-free sofware for scientific work. But it is
my personal choice and I can understand you make others.

It makes me simply stronger in my mind that we (the Axiom community)
had nothing good to expect from Aldor and from *waiting* for its
release as (real) open source software (that has not yet occured).

Best regards,
Frédéric Lehobey