RE: [pbmserv-dev] Questions of pbmserv copyright, etc. etc.

[David Glaude <dglaude@netbrain.be>]

>I've had my mailing list manager (eSquire) explicitly under GNU Public
License (GPL)
>[with a guilt clause] for now, but have been less than overwhelmed with the
"response".
What kind of response did you get?
What kind of response did you expect?

>I plan on converting to a derivative of the Berkeley license soon (and
>since I am the sole owner/contributor to that code base, that should
>not be a problem)

Being the only author of the code, feel free to do what you want.
Just make sure you keep available the last GPL version if ever
someone want to continue maitaining it and keeping it GPLy free. ;-)

>(e.g. gipf and zertz have GPL language in the source, so any code derived
from *that*
>code is GPLed as well... like a cancer^Wvirus^W^W^W)

The wish the writer of GPL code is to make sure any derivative distributed
in binary stay GPLy free.

About my code:
>fivehex.cpp:// inspired from hexade.cpp written mostly by Leonid Gluhovsky
<leonid@vnet.ibm.com>
>fivehex.cpp:// Next version to be release under GPL.
>fivehex.cpp:// Source code copyright David GLAUDE <glu@who.net>
I wish it it be and stay GPL, my next version is HexaFive
http://glu.freeservers.com/boku.htm is so.
Once I had fixed all the bugs and it was ready for prime time I renamed to
HexaFive.
The funny thing is that FiveHex might have been on Richard server for a long
time
without me knowing about it since I never receaved any reply
to any of my mail to Richard in the last 6(?) month. ;-)

I also have release Xeniz http://glu.freeservers.com/zenix.htm and in that
page
I have some throught about licencing and linking Richard's code to GPL:
"Bellow you will find the source code (release under the protection of the
GPL) of the game. This code cannot compile/execute without Richard's PBeM
server code (wich is not release under GPL licence). Because I know no other
PBeM environment that would be compatible with Richard's one, the only way
to have this game work is for Richard to accept this code and let it run on
it's server.

If you are a troll from Slashdot you may think... Hey, linking non-GPL to
GPL code, this is breaking the GPL. In fact NOT, Richard does not distribute
any binary version of his code. If he choose to link his great PBeM server
code to my small little game code, it will only make a private modification
(link) to GPL code. And of course he is free to do so (you too). Because
this GPL+NON-GPL mixture is running on a server rather than distributed in
binary form, this is perfectly OK. This might be a GNU GPL loophole, but hey
nobody is perfect, Linux binary loadable module are also loophole AFAIK."

One thing that start to be obvious when thinking about GPL
is that it only protect code or binary distribution of the code.
As long as the code run on a server (and is compiled there let say),
then you are FREE to do whatever you want.

This is a main issue with eSquire and PBeM server code.

>pbmserv has been a lot of work, and I don't want someone syphoning off
>the code and starting their own version of it.

You want to avoid forking of your code?
It is very difficult to be FREE let other be FREE and deny them this basic
freedom.

>One issue that has arisen...  Zertz and GIPF use GPL.  Therefore any
>works that derive from them are also GPL.  This applies to the CODE.

This apply to the code AND binary distribution of this code AND any
derivative.
As said above this might not be an issue at all since you don't distribute
binary.

>This does not apply to the other pbmserv modules that Zertz and GIPF
>happen to reference.  Those remain under the pbmserv license (whatever
>that becomes).

About the future pbmserv license:
>I want the code to be freely viewable, and usable.  But it will not be
>GPL, unless individual authors specify otherwise, I will create a Berkeley
>style license (basically, it's free to do what you want with it... and
>here are the caveats [see above]) that will be called something like
>"the pbmserv license".

How do you feel if let say "Microsoft" take your code, make a comercial
version
and distribute it. With the GPL we make sure that the code of that comercial
version is available and we can make a free copy of it.
This is the main reason why Microsoft like BSD-newversion-licence and don't
like
GPL licence.

Last time I discussed with you Richard, you said you wanted to keep the
right
to make a commercial version of your server (if ever).

In private conversation with "Stephen Tavener" author of Octi for PBeM
(still in beta test),
he said he don't like GPL because he want to avoid his code to be use for
nuclear weapon or to make money and some other ethical issue.
I was not able to convince him.

So the big question is "What don't you like about the GPL?".

David GLAUDE