but it depends on what you're trying to achieve with the license.
2012-11-27 33255, 2012
ianmcorvidae
"I want people to be able to use it easily" suggests not-GPL
2012-11-27 33251, 2012
warp
I don't think the GPL is particularly difficult to comply with :)
2012-11-27 33206, 2012
ianmcorvidae
a lot of folks disagree, is all I'm saying :P
2012-11-27 33236, 2012
ianmcorvidae
my take would be: if you want people to be able to use it easily, BSD or something; LGPL as sort of a weird ineffective middle-ground; or GPL if you want some amount of recourse if people don't feel like publishing changes
2012-11-27 33237, 2012
ocharles
it seems I used GPL3 when I created the project, so I'll just stick with that
2012-11-27 33250, 2012
warp
ocharles: hah, ok :)
2012-11-27 33200, 2012
ianmcorvidae
or, since you're not going to actually sue anyone over this, choose at random :P
2012-11-27 33217, 2012
warp
if you go permissive, I would chose Apache 2 over BSD/MIT/X11, because you get the patent protections.
2012-11-27 33221, 2012
ianmcorvidae
(or use BSD or the sqlite license or something appropriately permissive)
2012-11-27 33237, 2012
ocharles
i think I've used MIT in the past
2012-11-27 33246, 2012
ocharles
because a friend did. That's some LOGIC right there
2012-11-27 33252, 2012
warp
:D
2012-11-27 33258, 2012
warp
ocharles: it would help if you at some point at least come to some sort of conclusion about whether you prefer copyleft or permissive.
CatCat really doesn't like the "read more..." links, those look like the annotation ones and i am expecting the page to just load more text
2012-11-27 33225, 2012
ocharles
on that note, ianmcorvidae any reason you didn't use the same display logic as the annotation?
2012-11-27 33240, 2012
ocharles
actually, I guess the fade out doesn't quite make sense
2012-11-27 33244, 2012
ianmcorvidae
wikipedia pages are huge, and I'm not fetching entire pages in the first place
2012-11-27 33246, 2012
ocharles
cause you don't 'reveal' more of the wiki
2012-11-27 33258, 2012
ocharles
sure, I wasn't suggesting that, I just made the purdy transparent fade
2012-11-27 33205, 2012
ocharles
but then realised this isn't quite the right place
2012-11-27 33205, 2012
ianmcorvidae
ah
2012-11-27 33214, 2012
ianmcorvidae
the extracts are so small I didn't think that would ever be needed
2012-11-27 33230, 2012
ianmcorvidae
unless we wanted to display whole wikipedia pages inline, which I figured we didn't, so :)
2012-11-27 33245, 2012
ianmcorvidae
and yeah, that's a good point on the read more... links, not sure how to improve that
2012-11-27 33203, 2012
ianmcorvidae
there's some bugs with wikipedia's extract endpoint anyway, it appears (see https://beta.musicbrainz.org/artist/b86bf49a-9097… in anything other than German/Spanish, for example -- there's a page, but because of header things on the page it doesn't generate an extract)
2012-11-27 33242, 2012
ijabz
ocharles, regarding licenses I would much prefer something like Apache 2, GPL is pretty horrible IMO because you cannot use anything with GPL unless you make everything that uses it GPL
although "everything that uses it" is a bit of an exaggeration.
2012-11-27 33210, 2012
ijabz
yeah, but it stops good things happening, for example Apcahe wanted to incorporate my jaudiotagger into an Apcahe project, but even though I was using the less restrictive LGPL that was not acceptable to them
2012-11-27 33222, 2012
ianmcorvidae did my first major work in a language where the *LGPL* wasn't sufficently permissible for anyone to actually use it
2012-11-27 33227, 2012
ianmcorvidae
so I guess I have a bias :P
2012-11-27 33257, 2012
ijabz
and because I hadn't written 100% of the code myself and derived some of it from another LGPL project I cannot change the license
2012-11-27 33226, 2012
ijabz
so Apache cannot legally incorporate my library in their open source software
2012-11-27 33226, 2012
warp
ijabz: you cannot easily change the license, no. doesn't mean it's impossible.
2012-11-27 33209, 2012
ijabz
But difficult, if Id used something like APL I wouldn't have this issue
2012-11-27 33231, 2012
warp
ijabz: right, but that is a limitation of apache as an organization. they're the one refusing your work, it's not something inherently wrong with the LGPL.
Im blurring the issue, but if using GPL would be even more of a problem
2012-11-27 33212, 2012
warp
ianmcorvidae: right, but that's mainly because the LGPL is in general difficult to interpret. that would be clearer if you just use the GPL.
2012-11-27 33238, 2012
ijabz
The thing I really don't like about GPL is it makes out it all about sharing code but you can't use that code unless you abide by its restrictive license
2012-11-27 33247, 2012
ijabz
so it isn't really about sharing code at all
2012-11-27 33258, 2012
warp
ijabz: but you understand WHY it is doing that, right?
2012-11-27 33240, 2012
ijabz
Well , sort of, but I don't think it makes much sense, butId be interested in your explanantion
2012-11-27 33233, 2012
warp
I always like the analogy with car mechanics
2012-11-27 33206, 2012
warp
if I buy a car, and something is wrong with it, I should be able to take it to any car machanic and get it fixed. and not be forced to go back to the guy I bought it from.
2012-11-27 33239, 2012
warp
if I buy software, and something is wrong with it, I should be able to take it to any programmer and get it fixed. and not be forced to go back to the guy I bought the software from.
2012-11-27 33208, 2012
warp
the GPL guarantees that the sourcecode is always available to the user of the software, so he/she always has the freedom to make changes to it.
2012-11-27 33243, 2012
ijabz
But this analogy falls down on two counts IMO
2012-11-27 33235, 2012
warp waits for ijabz to explain the two counts :)
2012-11-27 33205, 2012
ijabz
1. Whilst it would be good to get the car fixed by any car-mechanic, I dont think it follows that anything in the slightest way related to the car should be published, i.e if I have taken a packet of photographs that happen to be in the car should I make available when and how they were created.
2012-11-27 33252, 2012
ijabz
2. With the car mechanic example you would only make available informations on the parts of the car, you do not prove a car for free. With source code , if freely available you have iftact provided the program itself and therefore a very small chance of getting paid for that work
2012-11-27 33218, 2012
warp
ok, let me answer #1 first.
2012-11-27 33207, 2012
warp
"anything in the slightest way related to the car" is not how the GPL works.
2012-11-27 33217, 2012
warp
the GPL governs a single creative work.
2012-11-27 33207, 2012
warp
if that work is a program, only that program is covered by the GPL. any data you load into it won't be touched by the GPL.
2012-11-27 33224, 2012
warp
any other programs communicating with it through public APIs wouldn't be touched by the GPL.
2012-11-27 33227, 2012
warp
etc..
2012-11-27 33206, 2012
ijabz
But if I use a library with a GPL license as a small part of my application then GPL is enforced on the whole work
2012-11-27 33210, 2012
warp
in the car analogy, a car stereo would be covered by the GPL if the car stereo is connected to the car through some kind of connection unique to that combination.
2012-11-27 33227, 2012
ijabz
Even though I would consider that multiple creative works
2012-11-27 33244, 2012
warp
but if this is an industry standard connection which you can swap out, then they'd still be seperate creative works. and the car radio can have a seperate license from the car.
2012-11-27 33238, 2012
ianmcorvidae
by the terms of the GPL, the... rather standard process of dynamic linking isn't apparently considered industry-standard, then?
2012-11-27 33240, 2012
warp
ijabz: well, yes, if you include a library as part of your program, the resulting application is a single creative work.
2012-11-27 33202, 2012
ijabz
Yes, and I think that is wrong
2012-11-27 33212, 2012
ijabz
whereas I don't mind LGPL
2012-11-27 33232, 2012
warp
ianmcorvidae: how you link is just an implementation detail, it doesn't really matter all that much for deciding whether your application is a derivative of the library or not.
2012-11-27 33257, 2012
ianmcorvidae
warp: according to the GPL, linked in libraries make it the same creative work
2012-11-27 33205, 2012
ianmcorvidae
why is that not an "industry-standard connection" like you're talking about?
2012-11-27 33213, 2012
ianmcorvidae
linking hasn't substantially changed in decades
2012-11-27 33217, 2012
hawke_1
ianmcorvidae: That’s never been tested in court.
2012-11-27 33231, 2012
hawke_1
ianmcorvidae: And it may fail…
2012-11-27 33231, 2012
ianmcorvidae
hawke_1: irrelevant, we're talking philosophy
2012-11-27 33204, 2012
ijabz
Because an app is based on the library, is isn't derived from the library, its just uses the libr ary , I would think of that as one creative works using a number of other creative works
2012-11-27 33248, 2012
ijabz
if the library itself is modified then I agree it is a good thing that the modified library should be freely available
2012-11-27 33219, 2012
warp
ianmcorvidae: I impression is that the FSF presents the GPL and LGPL as being slightly more effective than they really are. lawyers disagree about far the reach of the GPL is in those cases.
2012-11-27 33238, 2012
hawke_1
ianmcorvidae: Then yes, I agree that the GPL is simply incorrect, and linking doesn’t/shouldn’t make the larger work a derivative of the smaller work.
2012-11-27 33240, 2012
warp
s/I/my/
2012-11-27 33255, 2012
ianmcorvidae
as I said to hawke: we're talking philosophy right now; we're talking about "what the FSF presents" pretty immediately :P
2012-11-27 33231, 2012
warp
ijabz: anyway, to answer your #2.
2012-11-27 33200, 2012
warp
ijabz: my personal opinion there is that most users don't read licenses. whether you use the GPL or a restrictive license will have almost no effect on how many copies of the software you sell, and no effect on how many copies of the software are copied.
2012-11-27 33220, 2012
warp
ijabz: but obviously that is just my theory, I doubt that has ever been studied.
2012-11-27 33248, 2012
ijabz
I think you are missing my point, If I use a library licensed with LPGL/APL I don't have to distribute additional source code that I have written
2012-11-27 33252, 2012
ijabz
With GPL I do
2012-11-27 33203, 2012
warp
ianmcorvidae: the idea is that if you're interacting with a standard API, you're at most a derivative of that API -- not of any particular implementation of it.
2012-11-27 33214, 2012
warp
ianmcorvidae: and APIs aren't copyrightable :)
2012-11-27 33220, 2012
reosarevok
I wonder how many people can actually build a relatively complex program from source anyway
2012-11-27 33230, 2012
reosarevok
(about the GPL/source thing)
2012-11-27 33200, 2012
reosarevok
Of course, I guess they could give away own-built packages for free, huh
2012-11-27 33214, 2012
hawke_1 wonders what a “standard API” is.
2012-11-27 33215, 2012
ijabz
It doesn't matter whether or not the average user reads the license, but that just one person can take the source and build their own version, original author cut out of the loop
2012-11-27 33229, 2012
warp
ijabz: yes, but distributing with GPL doesn't mean you have to distribute for free. so it has no effect on your "chance of getting paid for that work".
2012-11-27 33200, 2012
reosarevok
warp: admittedly it does if someone else builds the program and puts it for free download in a second site
2012-11-27 33206, 2012
reosarevok
which GPL does allow, right?
2012-11-27 33213, 2012
warp
ijabz: right, but if you sell closed source software, it also just takes one person to take that and put it on the pirate bay.
2012-11-27 33215, 2012
ijabz
Wel it does, because as I say someone else can then build there own version and distribute it for free, so why anyone want the paid version
2012-11-27 33254, 2012
dekarl joined the channel
2012-11-27 33255, 2012
mb-chat-logger joined the channel
2012-11-27 33219, 2012
ijabz
Yes, but you can put in licensing ecetera if the code are is closed source
2012-11-27 33238, 2012
warp
because people want to get software from a reliable place, where they know they won't get some dodgy virus infected version, where they get updates, where they know their money goes to the author which helps make sure the author can keep working on it.
2012-11-27 33205, 2012
reosarevok
heh
2012-11-27 33211, 2012
ijabz
that is kind of cloud cuckoo land, that is not the real world
2012-11-27 33226, 2012
luks
I'd seen things like picard on thepiratebay, I don't think people care about a reliable source :)
2012-11-27 33239, 2012
reosarevok
Then comes lifehacker, telling people to use jaikoz's trial version to tag a few songs each time instead of paying for it :p
2012-11-27 33250, 2012
reosarevok
(go "money to the author" :p)
2012-11-27 33257, 2012
reosarevok
(it was lifehacker, right?)
2012-11-27 33222, 2012
reosarevok
But yeah, admittedly that's true of closed source too
2012-11-27 33228, 2012
warp
exactly, there are always people out there who will not pay for shit. they don't care about whether they get a GPL'ed version or a pirated copy... they just want it free.
2012-11-27 33231, 2012
ijabz
Yeah sure, but no problem people tried it, and just fixing a few songs is a pain, so some were happy to buy full version
2012-11-27 33240, 2012
warp
it's the people who ARE willing to pay for it you should care about.
2012-11-27 33215, 2012
ijabz
This is just totally unrealistic, I mean loads of people like Picard but it doesn't get that much in donations
2012-11-27 33228, 2012
warp
ijabz: I'm not talking about donations
2012-11-27 33235, 2012
warp
ijabz: I'm talking about selling software.
2012-11-27 33203, 2012
luks
xchat on windows is a good example of paid gpl software failure
2012-11-27 33214, 2012
hawke_1
ijabz: Picard also isn’t presented as for-pay software in the first place.
2012-11-27 33219, 2012
reosarevok waves from ychat :p
2012-11-27 33257, 2012
hawke_1
luks: I think that’s because xchat has a model of “it’s free, but fuck you Windows users!”
2012-11-27 33210, 2012
warp
luks: why is it a failure?
2012-11-27 33211, 2012
ijabz
okay, perhaps bad example, but it does have a nag screen, what Im trying to say is most people will not pay for something if there is no real need
2012-11-27 33224, 2012
warp
ijabz: I agree with that.
2012-11-27 33226, 2012
luks
warp: because if you google for "xchat windows", you get silverx as the first link
2012-11-27 33231, 2012
luks
which is a free build for windows
2012-11-27 33244, 2012
warp
luks: I understand that, but I don't see how that makes xchat for windows a failure.
2012-11-27 33201, 2012
ijabz
so if you make it very easy for someone to provide same software with no charge, they are not going to pay
