BLU Discuss list archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy
- Subject: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy
- From: smallm at sdf.org (Mike Small)
- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 20:48:12 +0000
- In-reply-to: <5706B9FE.7000705@gmail.com> (message from Rich Pieri on Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:50:22 -0400)
Rich Pieri <richard.pieri at gmail.com> writes: >> I don't think it shows what you say unless the argument is that these >> OASCR people are bright as hell and they don't even mention rms's >> arguments so therefore said arguments must be crap. [snip] > > DoE-funded scientists are the same scientists who work on Fermi Linux > (GPL), Scientific Linux (GPL), Octave (GPL), ROOT (GPL) and so forth. > They are no strangers to various FLOSS licenses. In fact, it was their > activities which originally brought about the DoE's OSS policies, not > the other way around. > > Also, the exclusion of RMS's arguments does not make their argument > crap. It means they see his arguments as crap and not worth bringing up. > Especially since the audience is already far more familiar with RMS than > the people at the DoE. You're misreading or my sentence is ambiguous. That's what I'm saying. I'm not saying the DoE arguments are crap but that the only argument you could be making (and in fact seem to be making in this email) by citing that document is that they (rms's arguments) must be crap since DoE never bothers to take them up in said document. I don't consider that an example of someone considering his arguments and working out how they're off base. Or at least it's not a useful example since we're not exposed to their reasoning only its after effects. >> This is puzzling. First in its specificity: there are other software >> licenses that seem to more or less accomplish what CC BY does. > > The GPL does not. The GPL fails to meet one of the most important > academic criteria: recognition. What RMS calls onerous advertising is > treasured by the academic community. That the GNU licenses permit the > removal of recognition notices makes them unsuitable for academic works. Well, I meant the BSD, MIT, ISC, Apache, etc. licenses here. In other words non-copyleft licenses. Those are what I was thinking of as roughly functionally equivalent to CC BY in the main. When rms discusses onerous advertising he's referring to the clause in the original 4 clause BSD license (and if he were here he'd take me to task for earlier typing "the BSD [license]" as if there were only one). That issue wasn't one of mentioning people in the changes file or source files but of requiring lists of organizations to appear in your advertising materials. In fact is there any GNU project at all that does not keep a list of contributors which is sacrosanct and never elided from -- or for that matter that does not use some kind of publicly accessible source control system? e.g. I half followed emacs-devel when they converted to git and getting history preserved was something they seemed extremely serious about. The GPL did not seem to interfere with this so much as the fact that people change their name or use different emails and tags to refer to themselves over time. Besides which, 4 clause BSD is rejected now by all the BSDs. What in the GPL is different from the so called permissive licenses (the ones that are still commonly used as opposed to 4 clause BSD) regarding keeping or not keeping the list of copyright holders or contributors? Taking the ISC license, for instance, there is the requirement that the copyright notice be retained but... 1. when I look in OpenBSD source control for instance, I don't tend to see the complete list of contributors put in the copyright (and OpenBSD is very conscientious about attribution, licensing and copyright so I think a good example here). e.g. ... http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.sbin/ntpd/control.c 2. GPLv3 part 7 seems to allow you to add a term that requires that attribution be done strictly, and that that addition wouldn't qualify for downstream stripping. In practice you'd want to get attribution information from source control with either license involved. So I don't know what you're getting at regarding the GPL and scientists' need for attribution (but not advertising, I wouldn't think, unless they happen to be selling something). -- Mike Small smallm at sdf.org
- Follow-Ups:
- [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Rich Pieri)
- [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy
- References:
- [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Rich Pieri)
- [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy
- Prev by Date: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy
- Next by Date: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy
- Previous by thread: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy
- Next by thread: [Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy
- Index(es):