Wanted: PHP public domain projects

Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote:
[mysql]
> Commercial users can't make much use of the GPL version because of the
> restrictions in the license

This is simply not true... in a commercial environment I can do anyhting
to and with GPLed code like I see fit, the _only_ restriction in GPL
activates on redistribution.

I have used many GPLed programs for commercial use. I even modified them
to fit the task. I just will not (and cannot) ever release them to a
third party.

> GPL code is *copyrighted* - and the license restricts numerous
> rights to the original authors of the code, which puts them in
> a privilidged position to sell their software to businesses
> under different licenses.

I don't have clue how copyright laws are where you live, but here (NL)
the GPL grants rights to the user, it doesn't take any away (I guess
that will be the same for all EC countries)... No license, no legal use.
A license can transfer anything except ownership.

--

Daniel Tryba

Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message news:<I2JC4M.B8F@bath.ac.uk>...
[..]
> Users have been hoodwinked into thinking that they are getting "Free
> sofware" when in fact they are getting "Fake Free Software" - which comes
> with copyright statements and license conditions *just* like every other
> sort of not-free software.

I think, "freedom" in GPL is for endusers than for other developers.
Your article reminds me phpSt.Manuel Lemo's post couple of months ago.
Personally I too see lot of troubles in using GPLed code; even PHP
guys have deboundled MySQL because of liecencing issue.

--
| Just another PHP saint |
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com

Tim Tyler wrote:
>
> I expect one of the reasons programmers copyright their code is to force
> all their users to keep their name emblasoned on all the copies for ever
> more. It also means that they retain all rights and ownership over it.
>
> That's may be good for the programmers' egos, but it offers no benefit
> for the users - rather the failure to give up rights imposed by copyright
> law creates many opportunities for incompatible license terms - and thus
> hinders collaborative development.
>
> Look at the way you can't use GPL code in LGPL programs. These
> licenses are written by the same guy - yet they fail to inter-operate -
> because of restrictions inherited from copyright law.
>
> Massaging the programmers egos is all very well - but it doesn't
> result in free software. Indeed just the opposite - legally
> *forcing* users to print license conditions pointing to copyright
> notices whenever they run the program takes a freedom away from
> users.
>

Personally, I agree that the GPL is an overly restrictive license for
all parties (excluding the author). But public domain really isn't the
answer either, for the reason that it gives all freedom to the primary
recipient, but none to the author or secondary recipients. The GPL
seems to be popular by only sheer momentum, but there are FOSS licenses
out there that give more freedom to everyone; I'd suggest using one of
those for your own FOSS projects and making alternate licensing
arrangements with authors of GPL software that you want to use in a
non-GPL-compatible package.

Tim Tyler wrote:

> I expect one of the reasons programmers copyright their code is to force
> all their users to keep their name emblasoned on all the copies for ever
> more. It also means that they retain all rights and ownership over it.

And there's nothing wrong with that. A lot of people want not only
recognition, but also ability to track their projects and contributions for
their personal and professional reasons.

> That's may be good for the programmers' egos, but it offers no benefit
> for the users - rather the failure to give up rights imposed by copyright
> law creates many opportunities for incompatible license terms - and thus
> hinders collaborative development.

It goes both ways. If an author gives up all rights granted by copyright
laws, then many "users" (i.e. developers who redistribute) may not, and
likely will not feel compelled to contribute to the public domain, but
rather take from it, claim it as their own, and redistribute in closed or
another fashion. This also hinders collaboration. The challenge is to
provide a fair "playground" somewhere in the middle.

> Look at the way you can't use GPL code in LGPL programs. These
> licenses are written by the same guy - yet they fail to inter-operate -
> because of restrictions inherited from copyright law.

LGPL is for libraries which are not programs of their own but are used as
parts of others. It places no restrictions on what license of the parent
program may be. For example, Yahoo messenger uses GtkHTML library.

If you have 2 similar libraries (and you are not their author) A - under
GPL, and B - under LGPL, and you wish to improve either one by adding code
from the other, you can always do so and offer the resulting library under
GPL.

> Massaging the programmers egos is all very well - but it doesn't
> result in free software. Indeed just the opposite - legally
> *forcing* users to print license conditions pointing to copyright
> notices whenever they run the program takes a freedom away from
> users.

I am not sure what license you are referring to here, but many licenses like
GPL, BSD, etc. require that you do not remove the copyright notices or
falsely claim that you wrote the software when you didn't. Copyright
notices have nothing to do with egos, but fairness of giving credit where
credit is due.

If you are referring to the copyright notices that many PHP CMSes require
you to print on the front page, I am not sure about those. Supposedly,
copyright and license also applies to the themes they distribute; but what
if I write my own theme? IANAL, I simply don't know.

> People are limited by default because of copyright law. Licenses
> give rights - rather than take them away.
>
> The GPL simply fails to grant all the freedoms that were taken away by
> invoking copyright law. For example, it fails to give the right to
> make binary-only distributions of modified copies.

It was not the intention of GPL to undo copyright law. If that's what you
think, then you are wrong. GPL relies on copyright law itself. If you want
to redistribute binary code without the source, use libraries or programs
available under BSD, LGPL, and many other licenses. If you are looking for
a PHP CMS there are some under BSD or BSD-type licenses available. But I'm
not sure how you can distribute them in an object form for PHP.

> Copyright law imposes the limitations on users of the code. The GPL
> merely fails to grant them back again.

It cannot fail in something it didn't attempt to accomplish in the first
place.

Keith Bowes <do.not@spam.me> wrote or quoted:

> Personally, I agree that the GPL is an overly restrictive license for
> all parties (excluding the author). But public domain really isn't the
> answer either, for the reason that it gives all freedom to the primary
> recipient, but none to the author or secondary recipients.

It gives those parties *exactly* the same rights. That's practically
the definition of public domain - everyone has equal privilidges -
and nobody is more restricted than anyone else.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.

Daniel Tryba <news_comp.lang.php@canopus.nl> wrote or quoted:
> Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote:

> > Commercial users can't make much use of the GPL version because of the
> > restrictions in the license
>
> This is simply not true... in a commercial environment I can do anyhting
> to and with GPLed code like I see fit, the _only_ restriction in GPL
> activates on redistribution.

GPL /does/ allow you to do some things. Many commercial organisations
give the GPL a wide berth - since building a business on code you can't
modify and redistribute on your own terms can cause future problems.

I believe Microsoft is one of the better-known GPL avoiders.

> > GPL code is *copyrighted* - and the license restricts numerous
> > rights to the original authors of the code, which puts them in
> > a privilidged position to sell their software to businesses
> > under different licenses.
>
> I don't have clue how copyright laws are where you live, but here (NL)
> the GPL grants rights to the user, it doesn't take any away (I guess
> that will be the same for all EC countries)... No license, no legal use.

Of course. As I've stated several times in this thread, copyright law
does the actual restriction of rights.

The GPL merely does not grant all the rights back again - and the
net result is restrictions being placed on users.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.

Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote:
> GPL /does/ allow you to do some things. Many commercial organisations
> give the GPL a wide berth - since building a business on code you can't
> modify and redistribute on your own terms can cause future problems.

You can modify and you can redistribute _your own code_ in any way you
want. But if you use other code (eg GPLed) it's not totally your own
code to start with, so you never ever have full control anyway. If one
doens't agree with GPL (or any other license) that effectively means
there is no loss to that person/company, they just have to treat the
software as non existant.

>> I don't have clue how copyright laws are where you live, but here (NL)
>> the GPL grants rights to the user, it doesn't take any away (I guess
>> that will be the same for all EC countries)... No license, no legal use.
>
> Of course. As I've stated several times in this thread, copyright law
> does the actual restriction of rights.
>
> The GPL merely does not grant all the rights back again - and the
> net result is restrictions being placed on users.

Care to explain? Without a(ny) license only copyright law govers the use
of code. And copyright[1] says I may use code but I may not modify[2] or
distribute it (the short short version). GPL grants me that right on 1
condition: if I (re)distribute it, I must supply the source (which the
GPL describes as guarantying that everybody has the same rights
forever). GPL doens't interfere with authorship (and thus owenership) of
the code any user writes (you own what you write).

eg BSD goes one step further... it grants the modify, use and
redistribution rights without any additional conditions (the
advertisement rule got scrapped sometime ago IIRC).

[1] the one I'm bound to, BTW copyright is not the correct term
over here. Applicable law is called "auteurswet", which translates to
"author law". That law specifies cases where usage of property does not
conflict with law.

[2] Actually I may modify or reverse engineer, but only modify for
personal use or reverse engineer for interoperability.

--

Daniel Tryba

Zurab Davitiani <agt@mindless.com> wrote or quoted:
> Tim Tyler wrote:

> > I expect one of the reasons programmers copyright their code is to force
> > all their users to keep their name emblasoned on all the copies for ever
> > more. It also means that they retain all rights and ownership over it.
>
> And there's nothing wrong with that. A lot of people want not only
> recognition, but also ability to track their projects and contributions for
> their personal and professional reasons.

Great - but let's not pretend the resulting software is "free" when there
are legal restrictions on its use - and you can get sued for doing the
wrong thing with it.

> > That's may be good for the programmers' egos, but it offers no benefit
> > for the users - rather the failure to give up rights imposed by copyright
> > law creates many opportunities for incompatible license terms - and thus
> > hinders collaborative development.
>
> It goes both ways. If an author gives up all rights granted by copyright
> laws, then many "users" (i.e. developers who redistribute) may not, and
> likely will not feel compelled to contribute to the public domain, but
> rather take from it, claim it as their own, and redistribute in closed or
> another fashion. This also hinders collaboration. [...]

Once in the public domain, always in the public domain. Any attempt
to claim ownership or copyright over public domain code would be rejected
in court.

> > Massaging the programmers egos is all very well - but it doesn't
> > result in free software. Indeed just the opposite - legally
> > *forcing* users to print license conditions pointing to copyright
> > notices whenever they run the program takes a freedom away from
> > users.
>
> I am not sure what license you are referring to here, but many licenses like
> GPL, BSD, etc. require that you do not remove the copyright notices or
> falsely claim that you wrote the software when you didn't. Copyright
> notices have nothing to do with egos, but fairness of giving credit where
> credit is due.

Not /just/ credit, *ownership*. The authors typically have a range of
right other users do not - including the ability to redistribute their
code under other licenses - since they have retained copyright and are
not bound to the conditions of their own license.

If the software was free, all users would have the same rights.

With the GPL, it isn't and they don't - the users are forced to work
with the code under restritions that don't apply to the authors.

> > People are limited by default because of copyright law. Licenses
> > give rights - rather than take them away.
> >
> > The GPL simply fails to grant all the freedoms that were taken away by
> > invoking copyright law. For example, it fails to give the right to
> > make binary-only distributions of modified copies.
>
> It was not the intention of GPL to undo copyright law. If that's what you
> think, then you are wrong. GPL relies on copyright law itself. [...]
>
> > Copyright law imposes the limitations on users of the code. The GPL
> > merely fails to grant them back again.
>
> It cannot fail in something it didn't attempt to accomplish in the first
> place.

A disagreement over my use of the word "fail".

I differ: Johnny can still fail his exams - even if he wasn't trying.

The goal does not necessarily have to be defined by the agent shooting at
it. In this case, I defined the goal I was talking about in my sentence:
freedom.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.

Ok Tim, this GPL holy was interesting, but really it all comes down to
CHOICE. I can write code and release it GPL that is MY choice, you then
have a CHOICE of using my code and the restrictions that the license
places upon it or not using it and writing your own. Now that said I
think the GPL stinks, it does infact cheat the meaning of the word
freedom, I love the BSD licenses I think they embody opensource. However
the GPL does protect individuals code from corporates, and if that is
what an individual wants, then it is good that he has that protection
for his intellectual property.

Daniel Tryba <news_comp.lang.php@canopus.nl> wrote or quoted:

> You can modify and you can redistribute _your own code_ in any way you
> want. But if you use other code (eg GPLed) it's not totally your own
> code to start with, so you never ever have full control anyway.

GPL'd code is never yours to start with.

However - with public domain code - anyone has *exactly* the
same rights over it that the authors have, so then you *do*
have full control.

> >> I don't have clue how copyright laws are where you live, but here (NL)
> >> the GPL grants rights to the user, it doesn't take any away (I guess
> >> that will be the same for all EC countries)... No license, no legal use.
> >
> > Of course. As I've stated several times in this thread, copyright law
> > does the actual restriction of rights.
> >
> > The GPL merely does not grant all the rights back again - and the
> > net result is restrictions being placed on users.
>
> Care to explain? Without a(ny) license only copyright law govers the use
> of code. And copyright[1] says I may use code but I may not modify[2] or
> distribute it (the short short version). GPL grants me that right on 1
> condition: if I (re)distribute it, I must supply the source (which the
> GPL describes as guarantying that everybody has the same rights
> forever). GPL doens't interfere with authorship (and thus owenership) of
> the code any user writes (you own what you write).
>
> eg BSD goes one step further... it grants the modify, use and
> redistribution rights without any additional conditions (the
> advertisement rule got scrapped sometime ago IIRC).

I'm not sure what you think is unclear in what I wrote.

Copyright law restricts the rights of users (for instance
they can't redistribute it).

GPL doesn't give back all the rights copyright law takes away
(for instance, users can't charge for the software).

The result is that users of GPL software face legal constraints
(which are not present with genuinely free software) - and they
can be taken to court by the copyright holders if they do not
conform to them.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.