#pyramid

exit

inklesspen: Please let that have been a joke ...

x58: which?

i think the affero GPL should be used more often.

The Affero GPL

particularly by webapps.

The GPL in general is stuff I stay away from, AGPL stuff especially.

well, i think the GPL is good and I think AGPL is also good.

so

not a joke

Alright.

I think in most cases it is overbearing.

GPL is generally about as useful as propetiary when I'm looking for software to use while making software

it's OK for self contained stuff

there are a number of cases where the GPL has led to software becoming free instead of proprietary.

CLISP and the objective-c frontend for gcc are two that come to mind.

what's your recommendation then x58?

grot: I use the OpenBSD license (MIT)

inklesspen: there are a number of cases where the GPL has led to crappy non GPL copies of GPL licensed software too, diluting the contributor pools and generally making situations more confusing and crappier (see for example, libedit vs libreadline)

i would probably not use GPL for a library unless i was confident it would be the best-in-class library and people would use it even if it meant they had to make their proprietary software be free software. but I think the GPL is an excellent choice for applications.

dstufft: perhaps those people should loosen their opposition to copyleft, then. :P

inklesspen: I'm one of those people ;) And I've done that (the make crappy clones of GPL things thing)

you're bad and should feel bad. :P

I won't release GPL software

I am not opposed to the copyleft for making software available. I am opposed to the copyleft removing my choice of what I want to license my product as.

^^

infection :(

the LGPL is cool w/ me

well, you're welcome to release your software under whatever license you want.

but if you want to base _your_ app on _my_ app, then i should get a say too. :P

I won't release GPL software. I don't mind using it, but in my day to day life I am much happier using BSD licensed software. It's the reason FreeBSD is my OS of choice, clang is my toolchain of choice, and more.

inklesspen: I disagree!

I disagree.

:D

then don't base your app on my app

:D

and i won't :)

Indeed, so I will go clone it.

^^

what a pity

Not really, increases the pool of possible choices, let the best project win.

(gcc vs clang!)

the entire point of the copyleft is to preserve user freedom.

Except it doesn't preserve my freedom as a developer (once again, I don't get a choice in what I license my code as if I happen to so much as look at GPL code wrong)

no, it preserves your users' freedom

it gives them exactly as much freedom to look at the code and modify it as you had.

How does me licensing my project as BSD not preserve my users' freedom?

transitiveness

inklesspen: also to create a "commons" that commercial entities can't participate in unless they give everything they have into it as well

someone else can then base his app on your app and make it proprietary

sure, but that's their own code

with your code in it

Yes, but that doesn't make the original source code any less free.

the original source code is still aboslutely free, just not the things that other people wrote

The original source code is still available for anyone and everyone to use. So my users still have access to it.

except maybe he made an improvement and it would benefit the users to have that improvement.

inklesspen: Then I'd hope they would contribute that change back, but I am not going to force them to do so.

when i make an app, i want to make sure that all users of that app (and other code derived from the app) have the same freedoms i had to make it. that is why i choose copyleft for apps.

inklesspen: in my experience that's a fairly idealistic view point, I've never worked at a company that was willing to use GPL

As history has shown, BSD source code gets plenty of contributions back, simply because it makes it simpler for downstream to sync with upstream.

if you think this is such a threat you will have to rewrite code to avoid it, I'm sorry for you. Perhaps you could negotiate a different license fee. :P

(in contexts where it would infect things they wrote anyways)

which was part of the point of GPL, to lock out propetiary developers

Why should I go negotiate a different license fee so that I can then release my own code under a less restrictive?

The LGPL doesn't even bother me TBH, "you have to release changes you've made to this library, but not to things that use it" is more then I'm willing to license my software as, but I'll use an LGPL thing since it respects the borders between my software and their software

because your "less restrictive" license allows more restrictive licensing, namely proprietary.

i don't think i'm gonna convince you but i know you're not gonna convince me. so i'm gonna go back to watching cartoons.

Still doesn't change the license on my source code, and it is still available freely. Someone taking it and using it in a proprietary codebase doesn't hurt the availability of the source code.

dstufft: LGPL is okay, but still has legal challenges surrounding it in corporations. Would rather not deal with it.

x58: I'd rather not yea, It's "ok" though yea

I <3 the ALv2

dstufft: Especially if you accidentally static compile something, now technically everything is under the GPL since that boundary no longer exist.

(The GPL death clause is pretty bad too)

if you're referring to the license terminating on a breach, gplv3 has a fix for that.

see section 8: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

Ugh, so much legalese.

inklesspen: yea, with the GPLv2 if you breach the license you're required to get permission again from all copyright holders... which in a project of any size is basically impossible

luckily linux and busybox are the only notable projects i know of that are v2 only; most are v2+ or v3+

so v3 will fix that.

and also linus seems to basically Not Care about license violations.

so

(i'm not sure why he picked gplv2 then)

v3 still lets a copyright holder terminate your license forever it appears

it's just not automatic

So if a single copyright holder of a large project says he terminates your license...

to me the GPL licenses seem to benefit larger corporations

you are still fucked.

x58: maybe don't violate the license then, idk

having your source code public is hardest for small groups of people, and recoding libraries is also harder for small groups

inklesspen: Except that a mistake can be made, for example you accidentally distribute a statically compiled version of the binary not realised that the libs you are distributing next to it are not used ... bam, license violation.

don't violate a ~5k word document or if you don't hope none of the people who wrote lines in the code don't feel like hurting you

small groups as in startup companies. i'm not too well read on the topics though

inklesspen: This is something I've ran into with QT...

x58: you're still fine if it's the first occurrence. after which presumably you have learned your lesson.

inklesspen: First occurence or not, that's still a lot to deal with, add more processes to make sure it never happens again, worry that the platform you are building for doesn't make it easy to deploy with external libs, shit like that.

There's no time llimit it on when the occurences expire either

make a mistake twice, 10 years apart and have to switch your entire product from linux to FreeBSDS

FreeBSD*

Which IMHO should be something you do anyway ;-)

I <3 me some FreeBSD

I don't use it much though :(

I still run all my infra on FreeBSD

My personal stuff that is. At $WORK we are a RHEL shop.

It's easier to run Linux when your infra is run by volunteers, more people are likely to be familar with it

and I run linux for my personal stuff just because it's easier for me to remember a smaller set of how to do X in different OSs

Yeah, makes sense.

I love my FreeBSD too much to let it go ;_)

;-)

[redacted]

Quick question for anyone who might know, what's the chances of https://github.com/Pylons/pyramid/pull/1570 making it into 1.6 do y'all thing? IOW if I already depend on 1.6 should I be fine waiting on that, or is that likely to be after 1.6 and in that case I need to fix it myself in my own app?

dstufft: I would recommend sub-classing the auth policy, and adding the requisite code there. We are waiting on mcdonc to make a decision.

That being said, 1.6 won't happen until mcdonc signs off on a few other open PR's.