licenses (was Re: riakkit, a python riak object mapper, has hit beta!(

Andrey V. Martyanov realduke at gmail.com
Mon Mar 5 06:23:21 EST 2012


Hi Greg,

Thank your for sharing the information! I'm sorry, I'm not trying to change
somebody's mind. Everything started when I've made a typo in my initial
message to Shuhao, and wrote "GPL" instead of "LGPL". I strongly agree with
you, licensing is a personal choice. I just said that the license and the
style guide chosen by Shuhao avoid me using his project. It was part of my
feedback. I just don't like to contribute to a project with such a license
and you might know about possible reasons. So, let's close the topic! :)

Best regards,
Andrey Martyanov

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Greg Stein <gstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey Andrey,
>
> I've spent well over a decade dealing with licensing issues. One thing
> that I've learned is that licensing is a personal choice and decision,
> and it is nearly impossible to alter somebody's philosophy. I find
> people fall into the GPL camp ("free software"), or the Apache/BSD
> camp ("permissive / open source"), so I always recommend GPLv3 or
> ALv2. (I find people choosing weak reciprocal licenses like LGPL, EPL,
> MPL, CDDL, etc should make up their mind and go to GPL or AL)
>
> In any case... license choice and arguments for one over the other is
> best left to personal email, rather than a public mailing list like
> riak-users. Changing minds doesn't happen on a mailing list :-)
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 05:24, Andrey V. Martyanov <realduke at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Justin,
> >
> > Sorry for the late response, I didn't  see your message! In fact, I know
> the
> > differences between the two. But, what is the profit of using it? Why
> don't
> > just use BSD, for example, like many open source projects do. The biggest
> > minus of LGPL is that many people think that it's the same as GPL and
> have
> > problems understanding it. Even your think that I don't know the
> difference!
> > :) Why? Because, it's a common practice. A lot of people really don't
> know
> > the difference. That's why I said before that (L)GPL is overcomplicated.
> If
> > you open the LGPL main page [1], first thing you will see is "Why you
> > shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library". Is it normal? It
> > confuses people. There are a lot of profit in pulling back the changes
> > you've made - a lot of people see it, fix it, comment it, improve it and
> so
> > on. Why the license forces me to to that? It shouldn't.
> >
> > [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey Martyanov
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Justin Sheehy <justin at basho.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, Andrey.
> >>
> >> On Mar 1, 2012, at 10:18 PM, "Andrey V. Martyanov" <realduke at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Sorry for GPL, it's a typo. I just don't like GPL-based licenses,
> >> > including LGPL. I think it's overcomplicated.
> >>
> >> You are of course free to dislike anything you wish, but it is worth
> >> mentioning that GPL and LGPL are very different licenses; the LGPL is
> >> missing infectious aspects of the GPL.
> >>
> >> There are many projects which could not use GPL code compatibly with
> their
> >> preferred license but which can safely use LGPL code.
> >>
> >> Justin
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > riak-users mailing list
> > riak-users at lists.basho.com
> > http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.basho.com/pipermail/riak-users_lists.basho.com/attachments/20120305/b4bf0bf4/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the riak-users mailing list