1. Vote Status #2 + Bob Thompson
- Posted by Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com>
Sep 21, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 22, 2006
The results now are:
GPL: 1 vote (~8 percent)
LGPL: 6 votes (50 percent) <*>
3-C BSD: 2 votes (~16 percent)
4-C BSD: 1 vote (~8 percent)
X11 MIT: 1 vote (~8 percent)
MPL: 1 vote (~8 percent)
No votes yet for the remaining licenses.
<*> CChris (Christian Cuvier) has e-mailed me stating that she prefers not to
share her email address with Yahoo and asked me to count her vote as LGPL.
Bob,
LGPL is less restrictive than GPL in that it allows coders to either statically
or dynamically link open-source LGPL libraries with their close-source
commercial/proprietary software without infringing on any licensing terms.
This is very important because if Euphoria's libraries were to become GPL rather
than LGPL, programs linking to them must also comply with the rules governing the
GPL (I think). This would be problematic if you licensed your programs under a
non-GPL compatible license (like CDDL or commercial EULA).
Since some people here develop commercial software, it is in their best interest
not to vote for the regular GPL. 
Regards,
Vincent
2. Re: Vote Status #2 + Bob Thompson
Vincent wrote:
>
> The results now are:
>
> GPL: 1 vote (~8 percent)
> LGPL: 6 votes (50 percent) <*>
> 3-C BSD: 2 votes (~16 percent)
> 4-C BSD: 1 vote (~8 percent)
> X11 MIT: 1 vote (~8 percent)
> MPL: 1 vote (~8 percent)
>
> No votes yet for the remaining licenses.
>
> <*> CChris (Christian Cuvier) has e-mailed me stating that she prefers not
> to share her email address with Yahoo and asked me to count her vote as LGPL.
>
> Bob,
>
> LGPL is less restrictive than GPL in that it allows coders to either
> statically
> or dynamically link open-source LGPL libraries with their close-source
> commercial/proprietary
> software without infringing on any licensing terms.
>
> This is very important because if Euphoria's libraries were to become GPL
> rather
> than LGPL, programs linking to them must also comply with the rules governing
> the GPL (I think). This would be problematic if you licensed your programs
> under
> a non-GPL compatible license (like CDDL or commercial EULA).
>
> Since some people here develop commercial software, it is in their best
> interest
> not to vote for the regular GPL.
>
>
> Regards,
> Vincent
While I'm currently a Yahoo! user, I don't want to sign up just for the poll.
Here's my take: I think the C code should be GPL or LGPL. Hmm. Let's go LGPL.
All of the current Euphoria 2.5 code is public domain. I think any parts coded
in Euphoria should remain public domain, including libraries and interpreter
source code.
Not that I have a high regard for public domain, but just to continue the status
quo. However if any major changes are made then maybe a license change would be
warranted at that time.
Source code that was shrouded or bound with versions of Euphoria prior to 3.0
should continue to work with the version it was shrouded or bound with. I see no
reason to change the licenses or functionality of prior versions. Newer versions
should do away with the shrouding option, unless the newer version is coded to do
shrouding with a public/private key method which should be secure.
That is, only the private key could decode the source code but the public key
could be used to run the code.
--
"Any programming problem can be solved by adding a level of indirection."
--anonymous
"Any performance problem can be solved by removing a level of indirection."
--M. Haertel
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
--C.A.R. Hoare
j.
3. Re: Vote Status #2 + Bob Thompson
Jason Gade wrote:
> Here's my take: I think the C code should be GPL or LGPL. Hmm. Let's go LGPL.
>
> All of the current Euphoria 2.5 code is public domain. I think any parts coded
> in Euphoria should remain public domain, including libraries and interpreter
> source code.
>
> Not that I have a high regard for public domain, but just to continue the
> status
> quo. However if any major changes are made then maybe a license change would
> be warranted at that time.
>
> Source code that was shrouded or bound with versions of Euphoria prior to 3.0
> should continue to work with the version it was shrouded or bound with. I see
> no reason to change the licenses or functionality of prior versions. Newer
> versions
> should do away with the shrouding option, unless the newer version is coded
> to do shrouding with a public/private key method which should be secure.
>
> That is, only the private key could decode the source code but the public key
> could be used to run the code.
agree 100%
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
4. Re: Vote Status #2 + Bob Thompson
Jason Gade wrote:
> While I'm currently a Yahoo! user, I don't want to sign up just for the poll.
>
> Here's my take: I think the C code should be GPL or LGPL. Hmm. Let's go LGPL.
>
> All of the current Euphoria 2.5 code is public domain. I think any parts coded
> in Euphoria should remain public domain, including libraries and interpreter
> source code.
>
> Not that I have a high regard for public domain, but just to continue the
> status
> quo. However if any major changes are made then maybe a license change would
> be warranted at that time.
>
> Source code that was shrouded or bound with versions of Euphoria prior to 3.0
> should continue to work with the version it was shrouded or bound with. I see
> no reason to change the licenses or functionality of prior versions. Newer
> versions
> should do away with the shrouding option, unless the newer version is coded
> to do shrouding with a public/private key method which should be secure.
>
> That is, only the private key could decode the source code but the public key
> could be used to run the code.
I think the front-end should be get licensed the same as the back-end but maybe
the standard libraries could remain public-domain.
The reason why is what if some smart guy takes our front-end and closes it. We
would only have half of an interpreter and nothing would work. I think LGPL would
be a good license to protect it.
Regards,
Vincent
