Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 91

Thread: PHP5 JSON Still In A Licensing Mess

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOne View Post
    wth, this is so stupid, my brain can't believe what my eyes are reading. Such a simple clause would require a full rewrite :S ohhh boy silly gpl purist's
    haha.. quite ridiculous..

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Elsewhere
    Posts
    89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    That license text is a classic in the IP world :

    http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code

    Read the whole post. The best stuff is near the end.
    Thanks for making my morning, sir!

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    81

    Default You either take copyright seriously or you don't

    Interesting, a whole thread dedicated to ridicule over license compliance.

    It is simple, no matter how trivial this line in the PHP5-JSON license is, it conflicts with the GPL clause that forbids restrictions beyond what is covered in the GPL.

    You can love the GPL or hate it, but it is a license written to make sure that everybody has the same rights and obligations under the license, no matter what.

    The "do no evil clause" supersedes the restrictions in the GPL and as such conflicts with it. It makes the combination of the two non-distributable.

    Besides, who would want to prohibit Dr. Evil from using PHP5-JSON code for his Sharks-with-frikin-Lasers-attached-to-their-heads?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    edit: Put another way, what does Stallman think about the fact that a lot of GNU code is being using to restrict liberties around the world?
    What?

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    Just my personal opinion here....

    I really hate the term "Free Software"..... BSD can have their free software. GPL isnt free. The copyleft explicitly makes it not free. Permanently OSS yes, but not free.
    What.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,061

    Default

    edit: Put another way, what does Stallman think about the fact that a lot of GNU code is being using to restrict liberties around the world?
    That'd be an interesting read if anyone has a link.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Yes! Get this garbage out of Debian ASAP!

    I'll say it before and I'll say it again, programmers make terrible lawyers and vice versa.

    Devil's Advocate:
    So I heard you were considering using this open source software on your PC. As it turns out, I have a company that employs a few dozen people and we developed a proprietary solution that costs a few hundred dollars to use on your PC. It has been reported to us anonymously that you have unfortunately decided not to purchase our software.

    We'd like to inform you that by not purchasing our software we cannot continue to keep our employees employed, and our employees feel that you are doing evil to them and so you don't actually have a license to use the "open source" software that you're using.

    In addition to that, an economist has determined that by not purchasing our software, this causes damage to our local economy which we take as an additional sign that you are using this open source software for evil and are in violation of the open source software's licensing agreement that specifically says the software can be used for good, and not evil!

    As a matter of fact, one of our employees recently had a baby and we're looking at having to downsize because nobody buys our software. They're going to lose their house because they can't make payments and they're going to be forced to move in with their parents. Clearly, anybody can see that forcing such a situation onto somebody, is the work of a mastermind of pure evil.

    As such, we're just informing you that you don't actually have a license to use the open source software and continuing to use it is just the same crime as pirating any copy of Microsoft Windows without a license.

    Of course, we offer you a licensing option of our software that you can purchase from us and we'll guarantee that you won't be in violation of any licenses.
    /Devil's Advocate


    Think this couldn't happen? That's what people said about SCO vs. IBM.. That's what people said about the NSA.. If you make bullshit changes to a license you damn well better know what you're doing and programmers usually don't when it comes to licenses.

    Again, as a Debian user I want to see this garbage get kicked out of Debian and let's make something a lot better that's actually "free".

    Lawyers absolutely *LOVE* undefined "good/evil" terms in licenses, because they can be bent and twisted to mean anything they want them to mean! In fact in one court case it can be twisted to mean one thing and in another it can be twisted to mean the opposite. That's why the GPL and other well written licenses doesn't have this kind of crap.
    Last edited by Sidicas; 08-22-2013 at 05:14 AM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    156

    Default

    ...a new JSON extension for PHP is being planned but hasn't been merged yet and there hasn't been a status update in some time.
    Of course there hasn't. This is PHP we're talking about. It gains hot new features years after they've matured in other languages.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    Just my personal opinion here....

    I really hate the term "Free Software"..... BSD can have their free software. GPL isnt free. The copyleft explicitly makes it not free. Permanently OSS yes, but not free.
    You are wrong about everything.

    It was the FSF who coined and defined the term "Free Software", and the very same FSF also wrote the first (and every subsequent) version of GPL. So saying "GPL isn't free" is as incorrect as it can be, GPL is the very reference implementation of a Free Software License.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    You are wrong about everything.

    It was the FSF who coined and defined the term "Free Software", and the very same FSF also wrote the first (and every subsequent) version of GPL. So saying "GPL isn't free" is as incorrect as it can be, GPL is the very reference implementation of a Free Software License.
    I really don't care what Stallman and the FSF says, they are wrong. Read the the GPL and it clearly isnt free. There are some pretty expensive terms used, the most expensive being the copyleft.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    306

    Default

    This isn't a "trivial" deal, telling people they can't use software inherently makes it nonfree. It also leaves 'good' and 'evil' undefined and up to the interpretation of a court of law... which can be ridiculous.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •