13 ms·

I don't understand. In what way are you disagreeing with me? I didn't say there's less GPL out there. All I said is that with more open source projects popping

by cm3 10y ago

I don't understand. In what way are you disagreeing with me? I didn't say there's less GPL out there. All I said is that with more open source projects popping up than in the past, and given how a random developer who understands English can also follow the BSD/MIT/ISC license text fully, how most new projects are liberally licensed, and most of the time MIT actually. GPL and Apache licenses are hard to use because you place your trust on their interpretation to lawyers, which is fine since many large projects trust it, but it's equally easy to understand how single developers or small dev teams choose, say, MIT for a new project. They don't choose the Apache license because it's a long legal document. I tried understanding it all and I failed to understand their contradictory sometimes-disclaimed-sometimes-not liability clause. Upon further inspection, I noticed that pretty much the same text is in GPL3's liability clause, so I concluded this must be something they must put in, even though as a developer to do not 100% disclaim liability as you do with MIT/BSD/ISC licenses.

toyg 10y ago
I disagree because you make assumptions not backed by data and try to pass them for truth. Just because you're uneasy or not convinced by the benefits of GPL, it doesn't mean "most developers" feel the same. Show me numbers that prove your point and I might reconsider. Until then, you're free to believe what you want and I'm free to believe you're wrong.
- cm3 10y ago
  Again, I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you're missing my point. I am very well aware of the benefits and can imagine when I would want a copyleft license but GPL's text is not it. Neither is Apache's license text for when I want a liberal license, but I accept it for its patent clause if that's needed. Repeating myself, unless you place your trust, which is a reasonable thing to do, with those who've vetted both licenses' texts to be fine, developers go with short licenses they fully understand. That's the argument here. If there was a well-known and short copyleft license, it could be similarly popular for new projects. I'm unaware of such a license and I'm afraid you misinterpret my argument as a copyleft vs liberal debate, but I've said that both Apache2 and GPL(2,3) suffer from an unapproachable wall of text with the cited clause existing in both and having the same semi-liability-disclaimer bug.
  - belorn 10y ago
    The length of the GPL text is mostly there to specify (limit) scope, and use specific legal terms for common legal situations. GPLv3 also add sections for license compatibility, to make it easier for violators to avoid lawsuits and continue with life if they decide enter compliance with the license, and define legal terms that is understood in US law, EU law and India/Asia. If you don't need any of that, you could just write down the four freedoms and add "must use this license" at the end. It would be almost as short as MIT, but enforcement will require a lot of common sense from the courts rather then legal precedence. I once heard a interesting idea to rewrite GPL in terms of pure permissions. It would be in theory compatible with the existing license, significant longer text, but somewhat easier to understand since it would just be a long list of explicit things which the licensee has permission to do.
    - cm3 10y ago
      I'm happy to find someone who has a deeper understanding of the issues it tries to solve by being so verbose. While you're here, do you think you can help me understand why Apache2's (and GPL(2,3))'s liability disclaimer clause effectively seems to disclaims just in part? BSD, MIT, ISC, all just disclaim any liabilities caused by the code, whereas GPL and Apache have an exception embedded in the clause, and I cannot make sense of it. Say you publish code under Apache or GPL that is then used by some uninformed who loses data and claims your tool is at fault, now claiming you to be liable as laid out in the sentence about exceptions to the rule. Why would one want that as an open source developer in code they publish but have no paid service contract of any kind in place that would cover liability claims? From Apache2: unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly negligent acts) or agreed to in writing This is the bit which is in no form included in BSD, MIT, ISC, and it rubs me the wrong way. I do understand that you're not above the law, but that's for courts to decide, and this bit doesn't seem to help either party (one of the contributors or the damaged license taker (aka user of the code)). I also don't understand how the following connects to the rest of the clause but other than that I can pretty much make sense of Apache2 even if such Contributor has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Why would the contributor be advised of damages the code he's contributing himself or contributing to might do?

by cm3 10y ago

toyg 10y ago

I disagree because you make assumptions not backed by data and try to pass them for truth. Just because you're uneasy or not convinced by the benefits of GPL, it doesn't mean "most developers" feel the same. Show me numbers that prove your point and I might reconsider. Until then, you're free to believe what you want and I'm free to believe you're wrong.

cm3 10y ago
Again, I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you're missing my point. I am very well aware of the benefits and can imagine when I would want a copyleft license but GPL's text is not it. Neither is Apache's license text for when I want a liberal license, but I accept it for its patent clause if that's needed. Repeating myself, unless you place your trust, which is a reasonable thing to do, with those who've vetted both licenses' texts to be fine, developers go with short licenses they fully understand. That's the argument here. If there was a well-known and short copyleft license, it could be similarly popular for new projects. I'm unaware of such a license and I'm afraid you misinterpret my argument as a copyleft vs liberal debate, but I've said that both Apache2 and GPL(2,3) suffer from an unapproachable wall of text with the cited clause existing in both and having the same semi-liability-disclaimer bug.
- belorn 10y ago
  The length of the GPL text is mostly there to specify (limit) scope, and use specific legal terms for common legal situations. GPLv3 also add sections for license compatibility, to make it easier for violators to avoid lawsuits and continue with life if they decide enter compliance with the license, and define legal terms that is understood in US law, EU law and India/Asia. If you don't need any of that, you could just write down the four freedoms and add "must use this license" at the end. It would be almost as short as MIT, but enforcement will require a lot of common sense from the courts rather then legal precedence. I once heard a interesting idea to rewrite GPL in terms of pure permissions. It would be in theory compatible with the existing license, significant longer text, but somewhat easier to understand since it would just be a long list of explicit things which the licensee has permission to do.
  - cm3 10y ago
    I'm happy to find someone who has a deeper understanding of the issues it tries to solve by being so verbose. While you're here, do you think you can help me understand why Apache2's (and GPL(2,3))'s liability disclaimer clause effectively seems to disclaims just in part? BSD, MIT, ISC, all just disclaim any liabilities caused by the code, whereas GPL and Apache have an exception embedded in the clause, and I cannot make sense of it. Say you publish code under Apache or GPL that is then used by some uninformed who loses data and claims your tool is at fault, now claiming you to be liable as laid out in the sentence about exceptions to the rule. Why would one want that as an open source developer in code they publish but have no paid service contract of any kind in place that would cover liability claims? From Apache2: unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly negligent acts) or agreed to in writing This is the bit which is in no form included in BSD, MIT, ISC, and it rubs me the wrong way. I do understand that you're not above the law, but that's for courts to decide, and this bit doesn't seem to help either party (one of the contributors or the damaged license taker (aka user of the code)). I also don't understand how the following connects to the rest of the clause but other than that I can pretty much make sense of Apache2 even if such Contributor has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Why would the contributor be advised of damages the code he's contributing himself or contributing to might do?