[9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[Bernd R. Fix]

Hi,

I just want to announce that a new 9P-related framework has been
published (pre-alpha status, PoC). You find the current project
documentation on the project homepage "http://aspector.com/~brf/J9P";
the published packages are available on SourceForge:
"https://sourceforge.net/projects/j9pstyxlib/".

J9P is a pure Java implementation of the 9P(2000) protocol including
authentication and message digests/encryption. It comes with a generic
9P server that publishes namespaces that are assembled from Java
objects. File operations in the namespace are mapped to Java method
calls; the called object handles the operation accordingly. This way it
is quite easy to integrate non-9P services (like SQL databases) into 9P
networks.

Have fun, Bernd.
--
gpg fp: F722 2826 40C2 B3C4 E136 6DE5 1DC0 7A20 513B C8F4

Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[hiro]

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Bernd R. Fix <Bernd.Fix@aspector.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just want to announce that a new 9P-related framework has been
> published (pre-alpha status, PoC). You find the current project
> documentation on the project homepage "http://aspector.com/~brf/J9P";
> the published packages are available on SourceForge:
> "https://sourceforge.net/projects/j9pstyxlib/".
>
> J9P is a pure Java implementation of the 9P(2000) protocol including
> authentication and message digests/encryption. It comes with a generic
> 9P server that publishes namespaces that are assembled from Java
> objects. File operations in the namespace are mapped to Java method
> calls; the called object handles the operation accordingly. This way it
> is quite easy to integrate non-9P services (like SQL databases) into 9P
> networks.
>
> Have fun, Bernd.
> --
> gpg fp: F722 2826 40C2 B3C4 E136 6DE5 1DC0 7A20 513B C8F4
>
>

Interesting, thanks.

Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[David Leimbach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1075 bytes --]

Very cool.  Can I mount it with v9fs?  :-)
I may actually have a use for such a thing very soon, oddly enough.

Dave

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Bernd R. Fix <Bernd.Fix@aspector.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I just want to announce that a new 9P-related framework has been
> published (pre-alpha status, PoC). You find the current project
> documentation on the project homepage "http://aspector.com/~brf/J9P";
> the published packages are available on SourceForge:
> "https://sourceforge.net/projects/j9pstyxlib/".
>
> J9P is a pure Java implementation of the 9P(2000) protocol including
> authentication and message digests/encryption. It comes with a generic
> 9P server that publishes namespaces that are assembled from Java
> objects. File operations in the namespace are mapped to Java method
> calls; the called object handles the operation accordingly. This way it
> is quite easy to integrate non-9P services (like SQL databases) into 9P
> networks.
>
> Have fun, Bernd.
> --
> gpg fp: F722 2826 40C2 B3C4 E136 6DE5 1DC0 7A20 513B C8F4
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1579 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[Bernd R. Fix]

I have been using Inferno for a while and wrote it originally to use
legacy services from within Inferno. So most (not to say all) testing
have been done using Inferno so far.

I have just set up Plan9 under Xen and got everything (including
network) up and running. I will focus on Plan9 for further development,
but have to make myself familiar with it first. But I am sure, that it
will work with Plan9 without problems.

I am also confident that the J9P server will also work with other 9fs
clients like v9fs - but that needs checking as well. If you give it a
try, can you please file a "field report", so I can include it in the
documentation?

Regards, Bernd.

David Leimbach schrieb:
> Very cool.  Can I mount it with v9fs?  :-)
> I may actually have a use for such a thing very soon, oddly enough.
>
> Dave
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Bernd R. Fix <Bernd.Fix@aspector.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just want to announce that a new 9P-related framework has been
>> published (pre-alpha status, PoC). You find the current project
>> documentation on the project homepage "http://aspector.com/~brf/J9P";
>> the published packages are available on SourceForge:
>> "https://sourceforge.net/projects/j9pstyxlib/".
>>
>> J9P is a pure Java implementation of the 9P(2000) protocol including
>> authentication and message digests/encryption. It comes with a generic
>> 9P server that publishes namespaces that are assembled from Java
>> objects. File operations in the namespace are mapped to Java method
>> calls; the called object handles the operation accordingly. This way it
>> is quite easy to integrate non-9P services (like SQL databases) into 9P
>> networks.
>>
>> Have fun, Bernd.
>> --
>> gpg fp: F722 2826 40C2 B3C4 E136 6DE5 1DC0 7A20 513B C8F4
>>
>>
>


--
gpg fp: F722 2826 40C2 B3C4 E136 6DE5 1DC0 7A20 513B C8F4

Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[Roman V Shaposhnik]

This is seriously cool and must be added to:
   http://9p.cat-v.org/implementations

Thanks,
Roman.

On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 13:43 +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just want to announce that a new 9P-related framework has been
> published (pre-alpha status, PoC). You find the current project
> documentation on the project homepage "http://aspector.com/~brf/J9P";
> the published packages are available on SourceForge:
> "https://sourceforge.net/projects/j9pstyxlib/".
>
> J9P is a pure Java implementation of the 9P(2000) protocol including
> authentication and message digests/encryption. It comes with a generic
> 9P server that publishes namespaces that are assembled from Java
> objects. File operations in the namespace are mapped to Java method
> calls; the called object handles the operation accordingly. This way it
> is quite easy to integrate non-9P services (like SQL databases) into 9P
> networks.
>
> Have fun, Bernd.

Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[David Leimbach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2365 bytes --]

Anyway to get a non GPL v3 licensed version from you?  I may not be able to
use this implementation for what I want otherwise.
I was actually planning on doing this myself, anyway at one point, and
BSDLng it.

I figured the best way to understand 9p would  be to implement it :-)

Dave

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Bernd R. Fix <Bernd.Fix@aspector.com> wrote:

> I have been using Inferno for a while and wrote it originally to use
> legacy services from within Inferno. So most (not to say all) testing
> have been done using Inferno so far.
>
> I have just set up Plan9 under Xen and got everything (including
> network) up and running. I will focus on Plan9 for further development,
> but have to make myself familiar with it first. But I am sure, that it
> will work with Plan9 without problems.
>
> I am also confident that the J9P server will also work with other 9fs
> clients like v9fs - but that needs checking as well. If you give it a
> try, can you please file a "field report", so I can include it in the
> documentation?
>
> Regards, Bernd.
>
> David Leimbach schrieb:
> > Very cool.  Can I mount it with v9fs?  :-)
> > I may actually have a use for such a thing very soon, oddly enough.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Bernd R. Fix <Bernd.Fix@aspector.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I just want to announce that a new 9P-related framework has been
> >> published (pre-alpha status, PoC). You find the current project
> >> documentation on the project homepage "http://aspector.com/~brf/J9P";
> >> the published packages are available on SourceForge:
> >> "https://sourceforge.net/projects/j9pstyxlib/".
> >>
> >> J9P is a pure Java implementation of the 9P(2000) protocol including
> >> authentication and message digests/encryption. It comes with a generic
> >> 9P server that publishes namespaces that are assembled from Java
> >> objects. File operations in the namespace are mapped to Java method
> >> calls; the called object handles the operation accordingly. This way it
> >> is quite easy to integrate non-9P services (like SQL databases) into 9P
> >> networks.
> >>
> >> Have fun, Bernd.
> >> --
> >> gpg fp: F722 2826 40C2 B3C4 E136 6DE5 1DC0 7A20 513B C8F4
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> gpg fp: F722 2826 40C2 B3C4 E136 6DE5 1DC0 7A20 513B C8F4
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3190 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[Bernd R. Fix]

David Leimbach schrieb:
> Anyway to get a non GPL v3 licensed version from you?  I may not be able to
> use this implementation for what I want otherwise.
> I was actually planning on doing this myself, anyway at one point, and
> BSDLng it.

I guess there is a clash of licenses between your project and J9P. So
what licence are you using (I assume it is no commercial project) and
what makes it problematic? I am not too deep into this licensing business.

As (currently) sole copyright holder I can make exceptions, but I feel
that this problem should be solved in a more general way. Any ideas?
Feel free to contact me via private mail on this.

I thought about using the LGPL for the project and might reconsider that
once a stable stage is reached.

N.B.: The project is in an very early stage of development and will need
quite some debugging and extension before you can use it seriously!

> I figured the best way to understand 9p would  be to implement it :-)

Me too - and my strongest motivation during the initial development.

Regards, Bernd.
--
gpg fp: F722 2826 40C2 B3C4 E136 6DE5 1DC0 7A20 513B C8F4

Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[David Leimbach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2385 bytes --]

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Bernd R. Fix <Bernd.Fix@aspector.com> wrote:

> David Leimbach schrieb:
> > Anyway to get a non GPL v3 licensed version from you?  I may not be able
> to
> > use this implementation for what I want otherwise.
> > I was actually planning on doing this myself, anyway at one point, and
> > BSDLng it.
>
> I guess there is a clash of licenses between your project and J9P. So
> what licence are you using (I assume it is no commercial project) and
> what makes it problematic? I am not too deep into this licensing business.


Believe it or not... it may be in a commercial product, and one of the
reasons why I may implement it myself.

Right now it's just a bit of a brainstorming session I've had with others
for a need for something that 9p might be able to handle.



>
>
> As (currently) sole copyright holder I can make exceptions, but I feel
> that this problem should be solved in a more general way. Any ideas?
> Feel free to contact me via private mail on this.


Makes sense.  One way I can get around this problem is to have the 9p act as
a proxy for another interface, but that can add a lot of extra fragility
(like RMI... yuck.).  Then the 9p server can run standalone, and be all
GPL'd but then it would consume our other programming interface remotely,
and without linkage.

Perhaps this is why Plan 9 folks usually don't have problems with the GPL...
there's no linkage to speak of in terms of programming.  It's the same
relationship of a web browser to a web server, and for the GPL to claim that
if a browser talks to a web server, that the browser must also be GPL'd, I
just don't think anyone would let it get that far :-).


>
>
> I thought about using the LGPL for the project and might reconsider that
> once a stable stage is reached.


Cool.


>
>
> N.B.: The project is in an very early stage of development and will need
> quite some debugging and extension before you can use it seriously!


I realize this... and haven't even downloaded it yet, but I commend your
efforts on doing this :-).


>
>
> > I figured the best way to understand 9p would  be to implement it :-)
>
> Me too - and my strongest motivation during the initial development.
>

Indeed!


>
> Regards, Bernd.
> --
> gpg fp: F722 2826 40C2 B3C4 E136 6DE5 1DC0 7A20 513B C8F4
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3587 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[Roman V Shaposhnik]

On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 18:49 +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote:
> David Leimbach schrieb:
> > Anyway to get a non GPL v3 licensed version from you?  I may not be able to
> > use this implementation for what I want otherwise.
> > I was actually planning on doing this myself, anyway at one point, and
> > BSDLng it.
>
> I guess there is a clash of licenses between your project and J9P. So
> what licence are you using (I assume it is no commercial project) and
> what makes it problematic? I am not too deep into this licensing business.
>
> As (currently) sole copyright holder I can make exceptions, but I feel
> that this problem should be solved in a more general way. Any ideas?
> Feel free to contact me via private mail on this.
>
> I thought about using the LGPL for the project and might reconsider that
> once a stable stage is reached.

Not implying anything, just a question: what made you pick GPL in the
first place?

Thanks,
Roman.

P.S. Personally, I try to license my stuff under as non-restrictive
license as possible (BSD or at least LGPL) that still protects me.
That said, I do understand people who use GPL as a statement, not
because the license is particularly good.

Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[Bernd R. Fix]

Roman V Shaposhnik schrieb:
> On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 18:49 +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote:
>> David Leimbach schrieb:
>>> Anyway to get a non GPL v3 licensed version from you?  I may not be able to
>>> use this implementation for what I want otherwise.
>>> I was actually planning on doing this myself, anyway at one point, and
>>> BSDLng it.
>> I guess there is a clash of licenses between your project and J9P. So
>> what licence are you using (I assume it is no commercial project) and
>> what makes it problematic? I am not too deep into this licensing business.
>>
>> As (currently) sole copyright holder I can make exceptions, but I feel
>> that this problem should be solved in a more general way. Any ideas?
>> Feel free to contact me via private mail on this.
>>
>> I thought about using the LGPL for the project and might reconsider that
>> once a stable stage is reached.
>
> Not implying anything, just a question: what made you pick GPL in the
> first place?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> P.S. Personally, I try to license my stuff under as non-restrictive
> license as possible (BSD or at least LGPL) that still protects me.
> That said, I do understand people who use GPL as a statement, not
> because the license is particularly good.

I can't answer this question with just a few words; I hope the other
list members don't complain about this 'non-Plan9' specific discussion...

As I wrote in an earlier mail, I am not too deep into this licensing
stuff, but I know what I would like to have for my software:

I want it Open-Source - that's my basic 'statement'. For me this means:
I am willing to share my ideas (and code for that matter) with people
interested in it. Im am even willing to give all people the right to
base their own work on it and/or to modify it to their own liking. All I
am asking for is that these people share their ideas and code just like
I did - at least if they distribute their work. Essentially, that's it.

Maybe I am wrong, but I had the impression that the GPL serves this
purpose best - from my point of view at least.

I understand that there are two cases which lead to problems with a GPL
project, but I believe both cases can be solved:

1.) You want to use it in an commercial project and can't/don't want to
    share your ideas and code.

    Assuming you are not a criminal, you can't include the software or
    derived work into your product - the GPL permits that. But you can
    still license a commercial use with the copyright holder(s) in such
    cases. If you don't share ideas, at least share your money.

2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license
    and want to include a GPL project or base some work on it.

    I am sure that this problem occurred many times in the past; maybe
    there even exists a 'best practice' approach how to deal with this.

To be honest: I don't think that the first case is an argument against
the GPL - not for me. I am more worried about the second case.

So my question to you licensing experts: is there a better license that
follows my basic statement (see above) and allows better "integration"
into other OS licenses? If I have a better license model, I am certainly
willing to change to it.

Regards, Bernd.
--
gpg fp: F722 2826 40C2 B3C4 E136 6DE5 1DC0 7A20 513B C8F4

Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[Alex Efros]

Hi!

On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:02:04PM +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote:
> 2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license
>     and want to include a GPL project or base some work on it.
>
>     I am sure that this problem occurred many times in the past; maybe
>     there even exists a 'best practice' approach how to deal with this.
>
> To be honest: I don't think that the first case is an argument against
> the GPL - not for me. I am more worried about the second case.
>
> So my question to you licensing experts: is there a better license that
> follows my basic statement (see above) and allows better "integration"
> into other OS licenses? If I have a better license model, I am certainly
> willing to change to it.

For libraries it usually solved using LGPL instead of GPL.


P.S. As for me, I'd like to try to make world a little better, and don't
bother much about reusing my code in commercial projects or even removing
my name from sources - so I use Public Domain for all my applications and
libraries.

GPL is a virus, designed to war against commercial software. That's not my war.

--
			WBR, Alex.

Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[J.R. Mauro]

On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:19:08PM +0300, Alex Efros wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:02:04PM +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote:
> > 2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license
> >     and want to include a GPL project or base some work on it.
> >
> >     I am sure that this problem occurred many times in the past; maybe
> >     there even exists a 'best practice' approach how to deal with this.
> >
> > To be honest: I don't think that the first case is an argument against
> > the GPL - not for me. I am more worried about the second case.
> >
> > So my question to you licensing experts: is there a better license that
> > follows my basic statement (see above) and allows better "integration"
> > into other OS licenses? If I have a better license model, I am certainly
> > willing to change to it.
>
> For libraries it usually solved using LGPL instead of GPL.
>
>
> P.S. As for me, I'd like to try to make world a little better, and don't
> bother much about reusing my code in commercial projects or even removing
> my name from sources - so I use Public Domain for all my applications and
> libraries.
>
> GPL is a virus, designed to war against commercial software. That's not my war.

Though this is certainly rms's intention, I'm not aware of a license that
guarantees you get modifications to your source code back, and that is important
to me as well. I don't really want people to improve on my ideas without helping
me in the process, and there are a lot of people will do just that.

So while the "forcible sharing" of the GPL is kind of fascist, I don't see any
other way to have the guarantee that improvements to your code by others are made
available to you.

>
> --
> 			WBR, Alex.
>

Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[J.R. Mauro]

On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 04:42:18PM -0400, J.R. Mauro wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:19:08PM +0300, Alex Efros wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:02:04PM +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote:
> > > 2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license
> > >     and want to include a GPL project or base some work on it.
> > >
> > >     I am sure that this problem occurred many times in the past; maybe
> > >     there even exists a 'best practice' approach how to deal with this.
> > >
> > > To be honest: I don't think that the first case is an argument against
> > > the GPL - not for me. I am more worried about the second case.
> > >
> > > So my question to you licensing experts: is there a better license that
> > > follows my basic statement (see above) and allows better "integration"
> > > into other OS licenses? If I have a better license model, I am certainly
> > > willing to change to it.
> >
> > For libraries it usually solved using LGPL instead of GPL.
> >
> >
> > P.S. As for me, I'd like to try to make world a little better, and don't
> > bother much about reusing my code in commercial projects or even removing
> > my name from sources - so I use Public Domain for all my applications and
> > libraries.
> >
> > GPL is a virus, designed to war against commercial software. That's not my war.
>
> Though this is certainly rms's intention, I'm not aware of a license that
> guarantees you get modifications to your source code back, and that is important
> to me as well. I don't really want people to improve on my ideas without helping
> me in the process, and there are a lot of people will do just that.
>
> So while the "forcible sharing" of the GPL is kind of fascist, I don't see any
> other way to have the guarantee that improvements to your code by others are made
> available to you.
>
> >
> > --
> > 			WBR, Alex.
> >

D'oh. I *do* know a license that does this: the Vim License. You aren't forced
to distribute source code, but if the original author wants to get it, you have
to provide it free of charge. Similar to the GPL, but less nasty and less
idealistic.

Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[Latchesar Ionkov]

Are you sure there will be any improvements of your code if nobody
wants to use it because of the license?

    Lucho

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:42 PM, J.R. Mauro <jrm8005@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:19:08PM +0300, Alex Efros wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:02:04PM +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote:
>> > 2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license
>> >     and want to include a GPL project or base some work on it.
>> >
>> >     I am sure that this problem occurred many times in the past; maybe
>> >     there even exists a 'best practice' approach how to deal with this.
>> >
>> > To be honest: I don't think that the first case is an argument against
>> > the GPL - not for me. I am more worried about the second case.
>> >
>> > So my question to you licensing experts: is there a better license that
>> > follows my basic statement (see above) and allows better "integration"
>> > into other OS licenses? If I have a better license model, I am certainly
>> > willing to change to it.
>>
>> For libraries it usually solved using LGPL instead of GPL.
>>
>>
>> P.S. As for me, I'd like to try to make world a little better, and don't
>> bother much about reusing my code in commercial projects or even removing
>> my name from sources - so I use Public Domain for all my applications and
>> libraries.
>>
>> GPL is a virus, designed to war against commercial software. That's not my war.
>
> Though this is certainly rms's intention, I'm not aware of a license that
> guarantees you get modifications to your source code back, and that is important
> to me as well. I don't really want people to improve on my ideas without helping
> me in the process, and there are a lot of people will do just that.
>
> So while the "forcible sharing" of the GPL is kind of fascist, I don't see any
> other way to have the guarantee that improvements to your code by others are made
> available to you.
>
>>
>> --
>>                       WBR, Alex.
>>
>
>

Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[Wes Kussmaul]

Alex Efros wrote:


> GPL is a virus, designed to war against commercial software. That's not my war.


Let's now pretend it's late August, the flame war has subsided after
500+ messages, and we can get on with the other discussions.

Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[Uriel]

Actually the GPL doesn't do what you guys claim it to do, it doesn't
require people to share back with you changes to your code, it only
requires them to release their changes if they *redistribute* their
code.

Anyway, licenses are an annoyance and a waste of everyone's time and
resources. I agree with Alex that the best is Public Domain, or at
least BSD/MIT/ISC-style license, which is as close as you can get to
Public Domain while retaining copyright.

Peace

uriel

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:46 PM, J.R. Mauro <jrm8005@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 04:42:18PM -0400, J.R. Mauro wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:19:08PM +0300, Alex Efros wrote:
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:02:04PM +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote:
>> > > 2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license
>> > >     and want to include a GPL project or base some work on it.
>> > >
>> > >     I am sure that this problem occurred many times in the past; maybe
>> > >     there even exists a 'best practice' approach how to deal with this.
>> > >
>> > > To be honest: I don't think that the first case is an argument against
>> > > the GPL - not for me. I am more worried about the second case.
>> > >
>> > > So my question to you licensing experts: is there a better license that
>> > > follows my basic statement (see above) and allows better "integration"
>> > > into other OS licenses? If I have a better license model, I am certainly
>> > > willing to change to it.
>> >
>> > For libraries it usually solved using LGPL instead of GPL.
>> >
>> >
>> > P.S. As for me, I'd like to try to make world a little better, and don't
>> > bother much about reusing my code in commercial projects or even removing
>> > my name from sources - so I use Public Domain for all my applications and
>> > libraries.
>> >
>> > GPL is a virus, designed to war against commercial software. That's not my war.
>>
>> Though this is certainly rms's intention, I'm not aware of a license that
>> guarantees you get modifications to your source code back, and that is important
>> to me as well. I don't really want people to improve on my ideas without helping
>> me in the process, and there are a lot of people will do just that.
>>
>> So while the "forcible sharing" of the GPL is kind of fascist, I don't see any
>> other way to have the guarantee that improvements to your code by others are made
>> available to you.
>>
>> >
>> > --
>> >                     WBR, Alex.
>> >
>
> D'oh. I *do* know a license that does this: the Vim License. You aren't forced
> to distribute source code, but if the original author wants to get it, you have
> to provide it free of charge. Similar to the GPL, but less nasty and less
> idealistic.
>
>

Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[David Leimbach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1065 bytes --]

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Wes Kussmaul <wes@authentrus.com> wrote:

> Alex Efros wrote:
>
>
>  GPL is a virus, designed to war against commercial software. That's not my
>> war.
>>
>
>
> Let's now pretend it's late August, the flame war has subsided after 500+
> messages, and we can get on with the other discussions.
>
>
How is this even a flame?  :-)  It's true.  Forget the negative connotations
of "virus", and realize that GPL transmits itself from software to software
in a viral fashion, and that is exactly its purpose.  Also keep in mind that
Richard Stallman hates closed source and commercial software.  Tell me he
wouldn't agree with that statement, and then look at some old GNU manuals
with the mockeries of commercial software guys with money falling out of
their pockets (if only that were true, I could afford my house more easily).

This is a discussion of distribution methods, and I think it's worth people
re-visiting this, maybe not in this forum, but to consider their options and
the consequences :-)

Dave

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1527 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[hiro]

> So while the "forcible sharing" of the GPL is kind of fascist, I don't see any
> other way to have the guarantee that improvements to your code by others are made
> available to you.

"Stealing" code is common practice, don't try to prevent it.
And there are no guarantees as you can see in piratebay and rapidshare...

Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[J.R. Mauro]

On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 02:47:29PM -0600, Latchesar Ionkov wrote:
> Are you sure there will be any improvements of your code if nobody
> wants to use it because of the license?

Ok, this is flamebait, but...

>From what I've seen, it works; there are plenty of projects under the GPL that
get contributions. Of course you can argue the merits of any of them.

But if you don't like the license, it's very simple: don't use it. And as I
remembered, there are alternative licenses with similar intent, like the Vim
license.

>
>     Lucho
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:42 PM, J.R. Mauro <jrm8005@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:19:08PM +0300, Alex Efros wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:02:04PM +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote:
> >> > 2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license
> >> > � � and want to include a GPL project or base some work on it.
> >> >
> >> > � � I am sure that this problem occurred many times in the past; maybe
> >> > � � there even exists a 'best practice' approach how to deal with this.
> >> >
> >> > To be honest: I don't think that the first case is an argument against
> >> > the GPL - not for me. I am more worried about the second case.
> >> >
> >> > So my question to you licensing experts: is there a better license that
> >> > follows my basic statement (see above) and allows better "integration"
> >> > into other OS licenses? If I have a better license model, I am certainly
> >> > willing to change to it.
> >>
> >> For libraries it usually solved using LGPL instead of GPL.
> >>
> >>
> >> P.S. As for me, I'd like to try to make world a little better, and don't
> >> bother much about reusing my code in commercial projects or even removing
> >> my name from sources - so I use Public Domain for all my applications and
> >> libraries.
> >>
> >> GPL is a virus, designed to war against commercial software. That's not my war.
> >
> > Though this is certainly rms's intention, I'm not aware of a license that
> > guarantees you get modifications to your source code back, and that is important
> > to me as well. I don't really want people to improve on my ideas without helping
> > me in the process, and there are a lot of people will do just that.
> >
> > So while the "forcible sharing" of the GPL is kind of fascist, I don't see any
> > other way to have the guarantee that improvements to your code by others are made
> > available to you.
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> � � � � � � � � � � � WBR, Alex.
> >>
> >
> >
>

Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[J.R. Mauro]

On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:11:28PM +0200, Uriel wrote:
> Actually the GPL doesn't do what you guys claim it to do, it doesn't
> require people to share back with you changes to your code, it only
> requires them to release their changes if they *redistribute* their
> code.

Trying to enforce private use of licensed code is impossible. It's like trying
to prevent someone from making C4 in their home and keeping it in their
basement. The approach every license I've seen takes is a "don't ask, don't
tell" policy, which is as effectual as a license can get.

>
> Anyway, licenses are an annoyance and a waste of everyone's time and
> resources. I agree with Alex that the best is Public Domain, or at
> least BSD/MIT/ISC-style license, which is as close as you can get to
> Public Domain while retaining copyright.

Unfortunately, as a race, we have not yet come to the agreement of throwing
every lawyer on the face of the earth into a volcano

>
> Peace
>
> uriel
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:46 PM, J.R. Mauro <jrm8005@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 04:42:18PM -0400, J.R. Mauro wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:19:08PM +0300, Alex Efros wrote:
> >> > Hi!
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:02:04PM +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote:
> >> > > 2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license
> >> > > � � and want to include a GPL project or base some work on it.
> >> > >
> >> > > � � I am sure that this problem occurred many times in the past; maybe
> >> > > � � there even exists a 'best practice' approach how to deal with this.
> >> > >
> >> > > To be honest: I don't think that the first case is an argument against
> >> > > the GPL - not for me. I am more worried about the second case.
> >> > >
> >> > > So my question to you licensing experts: is there a better license that
> >> > > follows my basic statement (see above) and allows better "integration"
> >> > > into other OS licenses? If I have a better license model, I am certainly
> >> > > willing to change to it.
> >> >
> >> > For libraries it usually solved using LGPL instead of GPL.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > P.S. As for me, I'd like to try to make world a little better, and don't
> >> > bother much about reusing my code in commercial projects or even removing
> >> > my name from sources - so I use Public Domain for all my applications and
> >> > libraries.
> >> >
> >> > GPL is a virus, designed to war against commercial software. That's not my war.
> >>
> >> Though this is certainly rms's intention, I'm not aware of a license that
> >> guarantees you get modifications to your source code back, and that is important
> >> to me as well. I don't really want people to improve on my ideas without helping
> >> me in the process, and there are a lot of people will do just that.
> >>
> >> So while the "forcible sharing" of the GPL is kind of fascist, I don't see any
> >> other way to have the guarantee that improvements to your code by others are made
> >> available to you.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > � � � � � � � � � � WBR, Alex.
> >> >
> >
> > D'oh. I *do* know a license that does this: the Vim License. You aren't forced
> > to distribute source code, but if the original author wants to get it, you have
> > to provide it free of charge. Similar to the GPL, but less nasty and less
> > idealistic.
> >
> >
>

Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[hiro]

> Trying to enforce private use of licensed code is impossible. It's like trying
> to prevent someone from making C4 in their home and keeping it in their
> basement. The approach every license I've seen takes is a "don't ask, don't
> tell" policy, which is as effectual as a license can get.

Thank god we have big corporations making C4 and being able to afford
all the laws they want.

Off-topic as usual, sorry and good night.

Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[Roman V Shaposhnik]

On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 22:02 +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote:
> As I wrote in an earlier mail, I am not too deep into this licensing
> stuff, but I know what I would like to have for my software:
>
> I want it Open-Source - that's my basic 'statement'. For me this means:
> I am willing to share my ideas (and code for that matter) with people
> interested in it. Im am even willing to give all people the right to
> base their own work on it and/or to modify it to their own liking. All I
> am asking for is that these people share their ideas and code just like
> I did - at least if they distribute their work. Essentially, that's it.
>
> Maybe I am wrong, but I had the impression that the GPL serves this
> purpose best - from my point of view at least.
>
> I understand that there are two cases which lead to problems with a GPL
> project, but I believe both cases can be solved:
>
> 1.) You want to use it in an commercial project and can't/don't want to
>     share your ideas and code.
>
>     Assuming you are not a criminal, you can't include the software or
>     derived work into your product - the GPL permits that. But you can
>     still license a commercial use with the copyright holder(s) in such
>     cases. If you don't share ideas, at least share your money.
>
> 2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license
>     and want to include a GPL project or base some work on it.
>
>     I am sure that this problem occurred many times in the past; maybe
>     there even exists a 'best practice' approach how to deal with this.
>
> To be honest: I don't think that the first case is an argument against
> the GPL - not for me. I am more worried about the second case.
>
> So my question to you licensing experts: is there a better license that
> follows my basic statement (see above) and allows better "integration"
> into other OS licenses? If I have a better license model, I am certainly
> willing to change to it.

There's a choice of licenses available that fit a pretty wide range of
goals than an individual might have. Now, my personal experience have
taught me that you have to always look at the price you pay for your
beliefs. For me it boils down to (in the order of relationship):
   * GPL severely reduces the applicability of the code that I'm
     producing. One major consequence of that is my code is not
     "taken places". The sheer pleasure of seeing your name on
     the About/License dialog of the iPhone/Windows (and BSD makes them
     do that if they use your code) is much more important to me
     than the closed sourced nature of the device or an application
     that uses my code.
   * Volume drives value. If your code is "taken places" somehow the
     stream of ideas, offers, etc. follows. In fact, I'd say if your
     code is *not* widespread because of the licensing issues, you
     have less of a chance to collaborate on it with somebody.
   * Which bring us to the final point -- if you stuff is good idea
     folks who want it are likely to re-implement it no matter what.
     They'd rather not waste their time and take it from you, but if
     your licensing doesn't allow them to -- they will. At that point
     you are no longer the host of the party you are standing in line
     withe everybody else to be let in. Case in point: ZFS on Linux.

These three things tilt me strongly in favor of BSD. Your mileage may
vary, of course.

Oh, and here's one final point: it seems to me that (at least!) LGPL
would be as good for your intended purposes as GPL is, without the nasty
side-effects.

Thanks,
Roman.

P.S. Arguably, the "lets share things and figure out how to
profit later" model could be blamed for Sun's performance as of late.
I'm not a businessman I wouldn't know. What I know though, is that
it makes me stick with the company and refuse Google interviews
and things like that. Somehow it just feels good. I don't know
any other place where the same level of transparency and openness
would be possible (if you do -- let me know ;-)).

Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib

[Bernd R. Fix]

Roman V Shaposhnik schrieb:
> Not implying anything, just a question: what made you pick GPL in the
> first place?

Thanks to everyone for sharing their views on the licensing issue. Quite
a few statements and arguments to think about... Choosing an appropriate
license for a project is even trickier than I thought. So I started from
scratch again:

I consider J9P to be a framework for developers; "end-users" have no
need for such thing. As a "normal" developer you might risk a look at
the framework sources, but your main focus is to use the libraries
(APIs) and technical design of the framework to create your own killer
application.

I published the framework not because I was looking for developers to
join the project (although everybody is welcome), but for developers to
use the framework to realize their own ideas.

It's fine with me if these developers distribute their own work under
other OSI certified licenses or even commercially as long as the
underlying framework is kept open-source. If you modify the framework,
you must publish that modifications, but not your own work that is based
on the framework. I think that is fair enough for everyone.

So I had a look at a few of the mentioned licenses, and finally ended up
with what I had considered before publishing the project - LGPL. I think
this is a good compromise between a very strict GPL and a somewhat
relaxed BSD. The next build will include the changed license references.

Regards, Bernd.
--
gpg fp: F722 2826 40C2 B3C4 E136 6DE5 1DC0 7A20 513B C8F4