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

[Bill Page]

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.

>
> (By the way, licenses that discriminate between users are commonly
> considered neither free -- as in freedom -- nor open source licenses.)
>

I agree.

> >               The only requirement is that anyone who uses GPL
> > software must license the entire result as GPL.
>
> This is not correct either. This is only for *binaries* that you
> *distribute*, because the right to redistribute the (GPL parts of the)
> software is given to you *by* the GPL. But if you do not redistribute
> and only *use* the software, you are not bound by anything. You do not
> even have to accept the GPL license (it is only needed if you want the
> right to redistribute).
>

Of course. That is trivially true. 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. The end user is free to use this software for their own
use. GPL does not place any restriction on whether or not that use
includes using the software for commercial purposes. APL2 does include
such a restriction.

> > > The non-commercial virus in Aldor is another case.
> >
> > I think this is a different case from GPL. The APL2 non-commercial use
> > clause specifically restricts the use of Aldor in certain "commercial"
> > circumstances but GPL does not.
>
> 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
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
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 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...

Regards,
Bill Page.