Re: [Axiom-legal] Licensing Aldor (was: GPL vs. modified BSD)

[Frederic Lehobey]

Hi,

On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 11:28:06PM -0500, Bill Page wrote:

> Yes, to me too. But the delay is really deadly. In my opinion we
> (the Axiom project) would have been much better off if we had
> known two or three years ago whether or not Aldor was going to
> be part of Axiom or not. If the answer had been "no", we would be
> struggling but at least work would now be well underway to improve
> SPAD and to write new algebra code. If the answer had been "yes"
> then the work to re-write the Axiom algebra library would likely
> be near completion and many people would be involved in writing
> new algebra code. But because there has been no decision for so
> long, the result is that nearly everything concerning the algebra
> is "on hold" and otherwise enthusiastic people (such as those
> developing Sage right now) don't want to touch Axiom because of
> the overwhelming amount of legacy code and uncertainty about
> Aldor - the only interesting part to many people with a computer
> science orientation. (Gaby being a fortunate exception :-)

Do not blame others for your own mistakes. From day one in Axiom
community I am advocating using and enhancing (and fixing) the already
existing Axiom (old) *free* compiler. (To my eyes non-free code does
not even exist and is doomed to join the trash.) I have been
constantly contradicted by people like you (and Ralf if I do not
mistake) who where 'waiting for Aldor', the 'future' of Axiom. Now you
measure the failure of your option. This way of seeing things (not
fixing the current compiler) has pissed me off and has (for the
moment) much lowered my interest in Axiom ('waiting for Aldor' as it
seems it ever has been since I known it, commercially or as a free
software project, but more than 10 years have passed since then...).

For your own information, I have looked into the old compiler to see
if I was able to fix things I consider critical (being able to have
variables instead of constants in domains and category calls,
something Aldor is able to do). I felt very alone at that time (it was
before Gaby's involvment and everybody was looking for a wiki, and /
or a graphical interface in Java at that time). I have to confess I
have not been able to understand sufficently well how the old compiler
does work to be able to fix it (I am not the right person for this
kind of job). Future will tell if such tasks will be achieved and will
resurrect my interest for Axiom.

I find your own attitude (petition, threat of violating their rights
on the code) with respect to NAG and other Aldor copyright owners very
rude and unacceptable. A very bad example from the free software
community that does to encourage companies to participate in free
software project and communities.

> > Yes, but the viability of open source rests on a healthy respect
> > for copyright and legality.
> 
> I doubt that. It seems to me that the original open source projects,

What a counter-sense.   :-(

> As far as I am concerned the viability of open source rests on
> volunteers. I expect that what motivates volunteers ranges widely
> but none of those whom I have spoken to had much respect for
> anything that prevents them from working on their chosen project
> or for that matter any commercially motivated group who uses
> licensing and copyright to limit open access to source code
> (currently Microsoft and Apple, formerly Sun and IBM), which of
> course is not to be interpreted as my saying they are willing to
> do anything illegal.

So you have never spoken to me.   :-)

> I think the apparent preoccupation with licenses and legal opinions
> of people working in open source is only in response to challenges
> to this freedom by commercial proprietary interests.

I think you think wrong. So let's conclude we disagree.  :-)

> > Morally, re-licensing the code willy-nilly would be about the
> > same as taking GPL code and incorporating it into a commercial
> > product.
> 
> There is nothing legal about using GPL code in a commercial product.

I suppose you meant 'illegal' or 'proprietary' (otherwise, it is
nonsense).

> Well, yes copyright law does require the permission of copyright
> holders. Violating the wishes of the copyright holders could
> leave one open to a law suit but Tim has already explained why
> such action is very unlikely.

So let's do it? You will never been followed by the rest of the larger
free software community.

> > Any violation of that trust and respect is very dangerous to the
> > community, to say nothing of relations with NAG (who after all
> > didn't have to do any of this in the first place.)
> 
> There is a risk I suppose that, since NAG retains the copyright on
> Axiom (see Axiom license), that they might choose to re-license
> Axiom at some point in the future. But that would not retroactively
> affect any versions of the Axiom that had already been released
> under the existing license.

(It is already their right as copyright owners today.) And that would
not affect the contributions they would not be able to keep without
explicit consent of their respective authors.

> > > > Tim is correct that only lawyers can render really useful
> > > > opinions on these issues, but that doesn't mean we don't need
> > > > to make a good faith effort to respect the license to the best
> > > > of our abilities.
> 
> Which license? As far as I can tell, what I was proposing in terms
> of releasing Aldor source under the Aldor Public License would
> conform perfectly with that license. Releasing Aldor under GPL
> would be more restrictive but compatible with the Aldor Public
> License.

Releasing a code under GPL with binary blobs without their source is
contradicting the GPL itself (and makes the code undistributable).

> > Anyway, Mike Dewar and Dr. Watt are still working on it, which is
> > excellent news and may render this whole discussion moot.

> I certainly hope so. :-)

Honestly I only look at what they have already achieved (actually
publish Axiom as open source). The promises do not count. Only for
those who want to believe them and they may hurt more than those who
dwell on them.

Best regards,
Frédéric