Thanks John, I think this is a valuable discussion. The compromise you propose wouldn't address the main point - the fear and aversion of using (L)GPL IP in proprietary IP. For me the key phrase in your email was the final one - 'if my reading is correct'. Everywhere I would take advantage of this modified license I will need to get the lawyers of the people owning the host IP to agree to this interpretation. I have checked all of the packages in the Haskell Platform and they are all BSD3. If it had been otherwise it would have destroyed a significant part of the value of the HP - clear and straightforward licensing implications for using it. I really don't want to plough work into a package that can't be bundled with the HP, the natural home for strategically-important high-quality libraries. Turning this around, it is going to be much easier to get people who are using Haskell in commercial contexts to contribute to HDBC if it has a license that meets their requirements. I do appreciate your concerns - I have regularly contributed code to the community and want to continue doing so - but I think there is little real prospect of HDBC being attacked by a proprietary derivative. I don't doubt there will be some free-loading, but this might be the inevitable price of attracting more investment. Chris From: John Goerzen [mailto:jgoerzen@complete.org] Sent: 23 February 2011 16:33 To: Chris Dornan Cc: 'Haskell Cafe'; 'Gershom Bazerman' Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] HDBC's future and request for help On 02/23/2011 05:48 AM, Chris Dornan wrote:
The simple answer is that I need to be able to use HDBC in proprietary products and the LGPL makes this awkward - the most serious issue being that owners of the code base don't want GNU licensed parts being linked into their code base. Packaging and delivery also gets complicated - (as I understand it) LGPL components can't be delivered pre-linked, necessitating dynamic linking of the relevant libraries or supplying a GHC kit which the customer must use to assemble the product. This is all a significant drag.
Let's talk about specifics. I imagine that in LGPL-3 that the only clause for objection here is 4(d)0, which requires that the proprietary application be conveyed in a form such that the user can relink it with a modified version of the library. I would be willing to add an exemption to that requirement to the HDBC license, which should address that concern. What do you think?
Also, wouldn't it be good to get HDBC into the Haskell Platform? - but we can't do this while it is LGPL can we?
Why not?
On the other side, what are the risks with adopting a BSD license? Is it that somebody could fork the library into a proprietary Haskell DB library that would compete with HDBC?
That's one way to put it. It's a big complaint I have about the BSD license. There are many, many examples of companies taking things licensed under BSD, adding features small or large, selling the result at profit, and neither releasing the source for the new features to the community nor compensating the original authors in any way. I see a distinction between someone that just wants to *use* HDBC and between someone that wants to "embrace and extend" it. I know that work I do on Linux, Haskell, etc. leads to companies such as Ubuntu making a profit off my work, for which they don't compensate me. I also know that if they improve on it, and it's GPL, they have to return those improvements to the community so we can all benefit. I am bothered by the notion of letting companies take work I've done on a volunteer basis, close it up, change it, never compensate me for it and also never release the changes to the community. This is why I prefer to avoid the BSD license. In the case of HDBC, if all somebody wants to do is use vanilla HDBC in their program without having to release the source to the proprietary program or jump through hoops to let end users replace HDBC, then I think that LGPL with the modification I proposed above would meet both their concern and mine. The LGPL would still require them to note HDBC's copyright (which the BSD license requires as well), and to distribute source to any modifications they make *to HDBC*, but impose no other onerous restrictions if my reading is correct. - John _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3462 - Release Date: 02/23/11