in reply to Re: Re: (OT) ActiveState
in thread (OT) ActiveState

As far as I can tell the artistic licence is one of the reasons that perl has been so successful. Personally I think Larry was completely right in his decision not to follow the Free Software Foundation licensing model. His model allows corporations to use Perl in their products for free and to make money off it. This results in much more perl being used than it would if it had a more restrictive "open" licence. The wide spread use of perl is IMHO a consequence of its loose rules and open and inclusive licencing scheme. Also note that while many companies make considerable profits out of Perl, many of them pay money to the various charitable organizations that support our movement.

Frankly i think that Larrys model allows us to get the best of both worlds.

Also, I doubt that there is a licencing model that does not have flaws. The GPL had flaws that lead to the LGPL. The LGPL has flaws that means that some open source developers are ignoring its constraints to futher the development of interesting and useful tools. One that comes to mind is exporting GCC parse trees for analytical and debugging puposes (introspection of C/C++). Afaiui supporters of the GPL and LGPL do not allow for this on the grounds that it allows a way for external tools to use the products of GPL/LGPL software without explicitly linking to it. Thus it bypases the derivative works clause. However this restriction is antithetical to the spirit of the movement in that it hugely restrcits the ability to make third party tools to aid the GCC based developer. The result has been that a number of groups are now ignoring these limitations and building in support for this anyway.

Ultimately I think open source models should be rated by their effectiveness in providing open source software, and allowing that software to penetrate the market. So far I think the Artistic Licence succeeds quite well in both of these areas.

--- demerphq
my friends call me, usually because I'm late....

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: (OT) ActiveState
by Anonymous Monk on Jan 09, 2003 at 17:18 UTC
    many of them pay money to the various charitable organizations that support our movement.

    Anecdotal "evidence" is not even worth mentioning. Please back this statement up with statistics. Show me the money.

    The GPL had flaws that lead to the LGPL

    Careful there, that's highly subjective. The LGPL is considered by many to be a large step back in the progress of Open Source software (consult your local free software mailing list for many examples).

    Afaiui

    Whew, confusing me there. What's wrong with AFAIK? These non-standard acronyms waste my valuable seconds. IIRC TNSAIQ (The Non-Standard Acronym In Question) SF (stood for) "As Far As I Understand It."

    Onto the main point. There are many other licenses that could have accomplished the Artistic licenses' goal. The Artistic license is not the only alternative to the GPL. The Artistic license is not the only license that encourages commercial use of the software (hell, even the GPL does). By loopholes, I meant legal loopholes. See This, this, this or just search google. You'll find tonnes of examples.

    A few quotes from the links for the link-shy:

    Although the OAL was intended to be as 'solid' and enforeacable as the GPL, it was poorly worded and constructed, resulting in a license that many claim would not hold up in a court of law.
    ...
    This legal weakness has resulted in many variations being created that try their best to follow the OAL's intent, but fixing the many loopholes and vagueness.

    And...

    the Artistic license is extremely confusing and poorly worded. Lawyers would likely advise against the use of this license. The Artistic license is filled with loopholes.

    Do a little research and the flaws in the license become obvious. This seems to be a case of reinventing the wheel to satisfy an ego.

[reply]

In Section Meditations