[erlang-questions] A PropEr announcement
Wed Jun 15 22:39:18 CEST 2011
But BSD and MIT do allow commercial users to change and extend the software, write extensions in ways that they can be closed. This is something the PropEr developers want to avoid given the previous messages. So clearly, BSD, MIT and DWTFYW licenses are not acceptable.
On 2011-06-15, at 16:36 PM, Jon Watte wrote:
> Isn't that almost exactly what the lesser/limited/library gpl is for?
> However, the "all patent rights may become contested" parts of gplv3 and mpl make those licenses unlikely to be used by real companies, even if they generally support sharing source. Else one of my competitors can take something I release, use it in a system infringing my product patents, and life
> becomes really complex really quickly. I would recommend upgrading to lgpl v2.1, or even BSD/MIT, if you really care about people being free to use PropEr for real. As it is, gpl3 based software is not "free" (as in speech) at all for most people.
> Anyway, it sounds as if the "L" addition might solve the stated problem, assuming no desired user/collaborator has any patents they care about.
> On Jun 15, 2011 4:12 AM, "Kostis Sagonas" <kostis@REDACTED> wrote:
> > Torben Hoffmann wrote:
> >> I am afraid that the GPLv3 is contaminating in this case ...
> >> However, as Eric mentioned earlier, the PropEr team is looking into
> >> adding a FOSS License Exception and now that the big v1.0 is behind them
> >> they hopefully get the time need to investigate this and see if it is
> >> possible to do.
> >> The PropEr team has been very approachable about this issue so I think
> >> we should just wait for them to find the time it takes to get this done
> >> right.
> > Thanks for this comment!
> > We have discussed the issue extensively yesterday and today we wrote a
> > mail to the Free Software Foundation to also ask their opinion and their
> > suggestion on how to properly deal with the issues involved.
> > Quoting from the mail we sent to FSF:
> > Our primary concern is that PropEr be as useful as possible to FOSS
> > programmers. Therefore, the most important requirement from PropEr's
> > license is that it allows FOSS projects (regardless of license) to:
> > * use PropEr without restrictions, and especially without needing to
> > switch to another license
> > * release their testing code under whatever license they choose
> > * distribute PropEr freely, to be used as part of the build cycle of
> > the project, or for other uses (e.g. if the project in question is
> > an Erlang IDE, it could distribute PropEr as a plugin), again
> > without needing to switch licenses
> > The above benefits need *not* extend to developers of proprietary
> > software. If PropEr's license could restrict them in some way, that
> > would be an added bonus, but this is not a strict requirement.
> > Another requirement is that PropEr's license is a (preferably strong)
> > copyleft: we would like to guarantee that any extensions to PropEr are
> > also free software.
> > // ... We also told them about the issue that the GPL is supposedly
> > // unusable for Erlang programs due to the nature of Erlang.
> > In short, we are looking for a solution/license that will allow at least
> > all open-source projects to use PropEr without any restrictions or by
> > being contaminated by GPL.
> > I'll be surprised if we do not find a solution, but please bear with us
> > until we resolve this the proper way.
> > In the meantime, you can use the software and the proper e-mail address
> > for questions and comments.
> > Kostis
> > _______________________________________________
> > erlang-questions mailing list
> > erlang-questions@REDACTED
> > http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> erlang-questions mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions