A momentous occasion in Textpattern history...

ruud · 2007-12-19 12:12:07

I’m amazed that nobody is discussing about the license change from GPL to BSD for crockery. I would have thought that some people would have strong opinions either way. I know I have.

iblastoff · 2007-12-19 12:29:23

well..now that zem is gone, is that decision still going to stick? (hmm i just noticed mary just made the update to crockery’s license change in trac) i personally don’t understand the switch nor do i see any benefit with BSD besides my original comment in this thread (though i’m no software license expert):

i’m a little confused about the change to BSD licensing (whenever crockery is released)

as far as i understand, all it changes is the ability for plugin developers to charge $ for their plugins (not that people aren’t doing it already, just that BSD licensing would give them more of a ‘right’ to do so). what else am i missing here?

also i think it may be possible that theres little uproar due to the announcement being made 1.5 years ago and no workable version of crockery even exists yet. that fact coupled with textpattern’s smallish community probably doesn’t have much of an in-your-face impact. i think most of us have come to accept the reality that the 4.0.x branch is going to be the mainstay for quite a while to come and thus license changes for software we’re not going to see for a long time means very little to most people.

Last edited by iblastoff (2007-12-19 12:51:01)

hcgtv · 2007-12-19 13:39:12

ruud wrote:

I’m amazed that nobody is discussing about the license change from GPL to BSD for crockery.

I’m a amazed you’re actually putting it up for discussion ;)

ruud wrote:

I would have thought that some people would have strong opinions either way. I know I have.

I prefer a GPL license, I like my software out in the open. The only benefit I see to a BSD license is if you, the developers, have plans for a commercial version of TxP.

hakjoon · 2007-12-19 14:40:33

Also the license change announcement was for 4.1 which doesn’t exist. Following TXP patterns crockery could become version 8.0 and go back to being GPL :)

I would also prefer the license to remain GPL. Don’t you have a say in this? After all it will be code you generate right?

Last edited by hakjoon (2007-12-19 14:41:17)

iblastoff · 2007-12-19 14:51:10

hakjoon wrote:

I think there were some concerns about plugins which relied on closed source libraries and things of that sort and the GPL.

It could have also been a way to develop Bannister and not have to release the source.

Not 100% sure.

Of course given the fact that 4.1 as a package does not actually exist there is no saying that the license shift has to happen.

i’m assuming demand for any commercialized version of TXP-related tinkerings is quite low (or else zem might still be around) and thus a move to BSD would be pointless. of course i’m just speculating.

i’m just happy to be involved in an active discussion involving anything related to the future of crockery.

Bloke · 2007-12-19 20:45:10

ruud wrote:

I’m amazed that nobody is discussing about the license change from GPL to BSD for crockery.

If I could be arsed to research the differences, I’d probably have an opinion! But since I’m not exactly a fan of corporatism I doubt it would be deemed a valid opinion in today’s mashed-up world :-\

From my rudimentary understanding, GPL gives the software more freedom, and BSD gives the developer more freedom. For what it’s worth, GPL gets my vote: I’m a developer, yet I can guarantee that every line of every piece of code I’ve ever written has been written by someone else at an earlier time. So how can I possibly claim ownership, let alone sell it on?

Sure I might be rearranging the lines of code in different orders and changing the variable names, but fundamentally it’s just ideas copied and pasted from other people and expressed in a fixed language construct. Unlike natural language, art, music, etc, there are only so many permutations to achieve the desired logical outcome. Perhaps the inventor of the de-facto binary tree algorithm might have cause for claiming their code is proprietary and that any subsequent use of the algorithm is plagiarism. Past that it gets murky very quickly, entering the ‘fair use’ arena that makes lawyers moist.

Mind you, charging for plagiarism hasn’t stopped Oasis making money. Cue programming art vs science debate… ;-)

hakjoon · 2007-12-19 21:53:34

BSD does not magically enable charging for Plugins. zem_redirect for example was a pay plugin but released under the GPL.

BSD does enable developers to release products based on TXP and NOT release the code. (Which is bad IMO)

Last edited by hakjoon (2007-12-19 21:54:07)

Bloke · 2007-12-19 21:58:45

Fair enough. That’s the last time I trust slashdot for a valid opinion on a subject ;-)

EDIT: Wait, excuse my naivety, so what’s the point of even proposing the change to BSD then? On the offchance that some corporate identity sees the value in crockery, snaps up the rights, closes the source and leaves us all without our beloved CMS? Rearrange the following words to make a well-known phrase or saying: foot in yourself the shooting.

Last edited by Bloke (2007-12-19 22:14:52)

net-carver · 2007-12-20 07:29:25

All

For what they’re worth, here are a few thoughts. (They are quick ones, and not particularly well researched I must admit)…

Firstly, it seems that the original intent of Team Textpattern was to allow Txp to use other, non GPL licenced libraries. At least, that’s what I’m getting from the article here. For the record, I like this.

Secondly, the GPL does not restrict people from charging (in cash, ecash or kind) for the software so licenced. In fact, it seems to encourage it. What it does do is enforce the recipient’s right to study, modify, use and redistribute the code as they want or need. For the record, I like this.

The GPL also allows you to develop — but not distribute — closed source derivitive works. In fact, the MLP Pack was initially developed like this for Destry and Marios. Only later, with explicit consent of all involved, was the pack put up for ransom. A successful ransom lead to without-(further)-charge distribution via download from my site. A failed ransom would have lead to a with-charge distribution. Just because I would have charged for the download would not have detracted from the downloaders right to redistribute it as they wanted — even for free.

Thirdly, BSD does not prohibit re-release of its software under the GPL (but the GPL does prohibit re-issue of its software under the BSD).

Code licensed under the BSD licence can be relicensed under the GPL (is “GPL-compatible”) without securing the consent of all original authors. Code under the GPL cannot be relicensed under the BSD licence without securing the consent of all copyright holders, as the BSD licence is not copyleft and therefore GPL is “BSD-incompatible”. Existing free software BSDs tend to avoid including software licensed under the GPL in the core operating system, or the base system, except as a last resort when alternatives are non-existent or vastly less capable, such as with GCC. The OpenBSD project has acted to remove GPL-licensed tools in favour of BSD-licensed alternatives, some newly written and some adapted from older code. (Source here)

I think this means that if Txp itself were issued under the BSD licence then plugin authors are free to issue their plugins under the BSD or GPL. If they go down the GPL route then anyone using a BSD based open (or closed-source) Txp fork would not be able to use that plugin without re-issuing their fork under a GPL compatible licence.

Fourthly. Just because Textpattern goes back to its BSD roots, doesn’t mean it’s going to go closed source. Some folks might choose to do a closed-source fork, but I think mainstream Txp is going to stay open source, even with a BSD licence adoption.

Of course, IANAL.

Last edited by net-carver (2008-11-14 11:07:31)

net-carver · 2007-12-20 08:01:32

Bloke wrote:

EDIT: … on the offchance that some corporate identity sees the value in crockery, snaps up the rights, closes the source and leaves us all without our beloved CMS?

Could be wrong but I don’t think that’s going to happen. As the 4.0 branch is GPL’ed code, the whole community has that as a starting point — you, Stef, have the right to use, modify and redistribute Textpattern (at least as of the latest 4.0 svn copy.)

Even if the future Txp development were to go ‘closed source’ (via BSD somehow plus the employment of Textpattern’s developers — or other developers for that matter) even a single member of the Txp community with a copy of Txp 4.0.x hanging around on their disks, could re-distribute it as a working baseline for a new GPL’ed development branch. So we’d all still have Txp 4.0.x plus the plugins.

What you could loose is Team Textpattern’s input to the software we all run. In other words, in the case of Team Textpattern’s employment for future private/closed-source development, we might be stuck with a stagnant branch unless others were to pick up the baton.

wet · 2007-12-20 08:10:38

net-carver wrote:

… in the case of Team Textpattern’s employment for future private/closed-source development,

I am not looking for a new job. Next step: Retire filthy rich ;-)

progre55 · 2007-12-20 19:56:37

I have held off putting in my two cents, because that is all it is really worth, but I do have a question (kinda related to this topic) …

I have always assumed that Team TXP had other full time jobs and that Textpattern was a passion and at times for you (them) an additional revenue source for larger projects and customized TXP. Am I incorrect?

I have been an avid user for the past year and a half … I just want to have a better understanding ….

Oh and for my two cents, I think we all would agree that the success of Textpattern can be tied directly to Team TXP (developers), individuals such as Bloke and Gerhard who create awsome plug ins and moderators such as Els and Hakjoon, so I think anything that would create a problem with this balance is a bad thing …

Thanks.

progre55

Textpattern CMS

Textpattern CMS support forum

#16 2007-12-19 12:12:07

Re: A momentous occasion in Textpattern history...

#17 2007-12-19 12:29:23

Re: A momentous occasion in Textpattern history...

#18 2007-12-19 13:39:12

Re: A momentous occasion in Textpattern history...

#19 2007-12-19 14:40:33

Re: A momentous occasion in Textpattern history...

#20 2007-12-19 14:51:10

Re: A momentous occasion in Textpattern history...

#21 2007-12-19 20:45:10

Re: A momentous occasion in Textpattern history...

#22 2007-12-19 21:53:34

Re: A momentous occasion in Textpattern history...

#23 2007-12-19 21:58:45

Re: A momentous occasion in Textpattern history...

#24 2007-12-20 07:29:25

Re: A momentous occasion in Textpattern history...

#25 2007-12-20 08:01:32

Re: A momentous occasion in Textpattern history...

#26 2007-12-20 08:10:38

Re: A momentous occasion in Textpattern history...

#27 2007-12-20 19:56:37

Re: A momentous occasion in Textpattern history...

Board footer