Bug #60122 for Math-BaseCnv: relicense

Thu Aug 05 21:57:31 2010 xenoterracide [...] gmail.com - Ticket created

CC:	xenoterracide [...] gmail.com
Subject:	relicense

2 issues your meta says GPL1 your pod says GPL3 also any chance you'd consider relicensing under a less restrictive license? being licensed as GPL means no one can use your code in an Artistic licensed module. Perhaps you could use LGPL(3) if you want to be more restrictive than the Artistic License? I've recently come to dislike the GPL due to the whole Wordpress themes conflict. I would like to use this module but as it stands I'd be in violation of the license (if I ever wanted to release the code).

Fri Aug 06 01:37:38 2010 PipStuart [...] Gmail.Com - Correspondence added

Subject:	Re: [rt.cpan.org #60122] relicense
Date:	Thu, 5 Aug 2010 22:37:31 -0700
To:	bug-Math-BaseCnv [...] rt.cpan.org
From:	Pip Stuart <pipstuart [...] gmail.com>

Sorry. That's a bug (or upd8 omission) in my meta. I prefer GPLv3, from what I've learned of licenses so far. I think GNU has the right idea about software in general. Artistic license is specific to (&& right for) Perly stuff. Are you saying my module is more Perly than soft?! You may have a case. I don't know about the Wordpress themes conflict yet but I'm a little unlikely to be dissuaded from the FSF.Org's approach. I'm not all that into Wordpress yet. Is it the dog's bollox? I can't always put my finger perfectly on it but... RMS seems to trump ESR (not always Linus though), by my book. I prefer my Linux/GNUy (even though nvidia blob may taint, I've made video-games && compromise too). What would you want to use my code in? Violating licenses can be anathema to goodness, truth, justice, && liberty! We *probably* wouldn't want you to do that. ;) N@Portman, hot grits, /.hole 8 yards? Shalom, -Pip@CPAN.Org On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 18:57, Caleb Cushing via RT <bug-Math-BaseCnv@rt.cpan.org> wrote: Show quoted text

> Thu Aug 05 21:57:31 2010: Request 60122 was acted upon. > Transaction: Ticket created by XENO > Queue: Math-BaseCnv > Subject: relicense > Broken in: (no value) > Severity: (no value) > Owner: Nobody > Requestors: xenoterracide@gmail.com > Status: new > Ticket <URL: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=60122 > > > > 2 issues > > your meta says GPL1 your pod says GPL3 > > also any chance you'd consider relicensing under a less restrictive > license? being licensed as GPL means no one can use your code in an > Artistic licensed module. Perhaps you could use LGPL(3) if you want to be > more restrictive than the Artistic License? > > I've recently come to dislike the GPL due to the whole Wordpress themes > conflict. > > I would like to use this module but as it stands I'd be in violation of > the license (if I ever wanted to release the code). >

Fri Aug 06 01:37:39 2010 The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'

Fri Aug 06 02:07:53 2010 xenoterracide [...] gmail.com - Correspondence added

Subject:	Re: [rt.cpan.org #60122] relicense
Date:	Fri, 6 Aug 2010 02:07:43 -0400
To:	bug-Math-BaseCnv [...] rt.cpan.org
From:	Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide [...] gmail.com>

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 1:37 AM, PipStuart@Gmail.Com via RT <bug-Math-BaseCnv@rt.cpan.org> wrote: Show quoted text

> Sorry. That's a bug (or upd8 omission) in my meta. I prefer GPLv3, > from what I've learned of licenses so far. I think GNU has the right > idea about software in general. Artistic license is specific to (&& > right for) Perly stuff. Are you saying my module is more Perly than > soft?! You may have a case. I don't know about the Wordpress themes > conflict yet but I'm a little unlikely to be dissuaded from the > FSF.Org's approach.

Which is why I suggested the LGPL (v3) which is more friendly for libraries. Show quoted text

> I'm not all that into Wordpress yet.

I don't use wordpress but they had a thing come up in the last year about themes being a GPL violation, due to the fact that the theme must use a php include for wordpress and is therefore derived from wordpress, and must be GPL. I think it's ridiculous that a plugin/theme is considered derived and must be open source, but that's me. I read a decisions on a court case in the 80s? that said that for something to be derived it must also replace the functionality of what it is derived from (e.g. like someone forks wordpress to make another blogging engine), I much more agree with that. I mean if I I put an awning on my home is it derived from my home? no it's an addon. Basically if I, or anyone else want to use this code, we have to GPL our own source, even if we're just using your published API, and not modifying your code at all. I believe this is the purpose of the LGPL if someone wants to use your API they can, but they can't modify your source or copy parts of it without having to go LGPL (and/or share changes). I can't release my code under another OSI approved license (well maybe AGPL because it's stricter even but that's it). at least as I understand it. Show quoted text

> dog's bollox? I can't always put my finger perfectly on it but... RMS > seems to trump ESR (not always Linus though), by my book. I prefer my > Linux/GNUy (even though nvidia blob may taint, I've made video-games > && compromise too). What would you want to use my code in?

I haven't quite figured that out yet, obviously I'm using it to convert 1 thing to another, I'm playing around with converting sha1 digests atm. Show quoted text

> Violating > licenses can be anathema to goodness, truth, justice, && liberty! We > *probably* wouldn't want you to do that. ;)

right. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.com

Fri Aug 06 02:21:02 2010 PipStuart [...] Gmail.Com - Correspondence added

Subject:	Re: [rt.cpan.org #60122] relicense
Date:	Thu, 5 Aug 2010 23:20:53 -0700
To:	bug-Math-BaseCnv [...] rt.cpan.org
From:	Pip Stuart <pipstuart [...] gmail.com>

I see where you're coming from. Derivative works are integral (with the whole infinitesimal calculus juxtaposition). A theme can seem hardly either. How about we discuss me LGPL'ing or Artistically re-licensing the module *after* you derive something cool from it && deservedly want that? I don't mean to be a git (Is that your SHA1 play?). =) -Pip On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 23:07, Caleb Cushing via RT <bug-Math-BaseCnv@rt.cpan.org> wrote: Show quoted text

> Queue: Math-BaseCnv > Ticket <URL: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=60122 > > > On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 1:37 AM, PipStuart@Gmail.Com via RT > <bug-Math-BaseCnv@rt.cpan.org> wrote:

>> Sorry. That's a bug (or upd8 omission) in my meta. I prefer GPLv3, >> from what I've learned of licenses so far. I think GNU has the right >> idea about software in general. Artistic license is specific to (&& >> right for) Perly stuff. Are you saying my module is more Perly than >> soft?! You may have a case. I don't know about the Wordpress themes >> conflict yet but I'm a little unlikely to be dissuaded from the >> FSF.Org's approach.

> > Which is why I suggested the LGPL (v3) which is more friendly for libraries. >

>> I'm not all that into Wordpress yet.

> > I don't use wordpress but they had a thing come up in the last year > about themes being a GPL violation, due to the fact that the theme > must use a php include for wordpress and is therefore derived from > wordpress, and must be GPL. I think it's ridiculous that a > plugin/theme is considered derived and must be open source, but that's > me. I read a decisions on a court case in the 80s? that said that for > something to be derived it must also replace the functionality of what > it is derived from (e.g. like someone forks wordpress to make another > blogging engine), I much more agree with that. I mean if I I put an > awning on my home is it derived from my home? no it's an addon. > > Basically if I, or anyone else want to use this code, we have to GPL > our own source, even if we're just using your published API, and not > modifying your code at all. I believe this is the purpose of the LGPL > if someone wants to use your API they can, but they can't modify your > source or copy parts of it without having to go LGPL (and/or share > changes). I can't release my code under another OSI approved license > (well maybe AGPL because it's stricter even but that's it). at least > as I understand it. >

>> dog's bollox? I can't always put my finger perfectly on it but... RMS >> seems to trump ESR (not always Linus though), by my book. I prefer my >> Linux/GNUy (even though nvidia blob may taint, I've made video-games >> && compromise too). What would you want to use my code in?

> > I haven't quite figured that out yet, obviously I'm using it to > convert 1 thing to another, I'm playing around with converting sha1 > digests atm. >

>> Violating >> licenses can be anathema to goodness, truth, justice, && liberty! We >> *probably* wouldn't want you to do that. ;)

> > right. > > -- > Caleb Cushing > > http://xenoterracide.com > >

Sat Jun 17 20:19:21 2017 Pip [...] CPAN.Org - Taken