David.Turing's blog

           

          Apache License更適合中國人

          Apache License更適合中國人,正式迎接Wayer Grant的挑戰(zhàn)

          很久以前,我開始著手寫一些基于Security的插件,由于我使用Eclipse,Eclipse插件似乎本身對我很有幫助,我在從事插件開發(fā)的同時(shí),只是寫一些很簡單的基于BouncyCastle的工具類。有一天,我看到了Portecle, 它是KeytoolGUI的一個(gè)分支,我覺得它的功能跟KeyStore 2.4大同小異,版權(quán)信息表明,2004年以后Wayne Grant并沒有再參與此軟件的任何開發(fā)。
          Copyright ? 2004 Wayne Grant
                      2004 Mark Majczyk
                      2004-2005 Ville Skytt?
          我著手在Protecle和KeytoolGUI的基礎(chǔ)上編寫一個(gè)安全插件,名為SecureX。Protecle和KeytoolGUI是基于Swing,我編寫了一個(gè)跟他們幾乎很相像的SWT使用界面(當(dāng)然不少地方作了增強(qiáng)),我希望使用上述的copyright來發(fā)布該Eclipse插件,我這樣想的理由有兩個(gè):

          第一,SecureX不只是集成KeytoolGUI這個(gè)證書管理模塊,而且還會集成簽名,加密等模塊,這樣,我們將來開發(fā)界面應(yīng)用的時(shí)候,我們開源隊(duì)伍可以同步開發(fā),只要我們按照Eclipse RCP規(guī)范,我們不存在任何的集成問題。
          第二,SecureX不希望使用GPL,而想使用Apache License。但由于Wayne Grant多次警告,如果我relicense(使用了他的代碼于SecureX,并將SecureX重新定位于Apache License),他將對我采取法律行動。其實(shí),GPL跟Apache License的最大區(qū)別是,GPL要求修改代碼必須也遵守GPL,也就是說,如果我屈服于wayne, 將SecureX應(yīng)用了GPL,其他人將無法將SecureX應(yīng)用于商業(yè)用途,除非他們承諾他們的商業(yè)軟件遵循GPL,你說可能嗎:) 相比之下,Apache License更自由,它強(qiáng)調(diào)使用源代碼的人不需要公開自己的源代碼(修改后的源代碼),也就是說,如果SecureX使用Apache License,SecureX的用戶可以任意修改它,并且可以選擇以源代碼的方式或者二進(jìn)制代碼的方式發(fā)布他們自己的成果(他們唯一需要做的是——在他們的成果中聲明使用了SecureX的代碼).

          我第一次向Wayne發(fā)郵件,邀請他他的回信如下:

          Hello David,

          Some guidance for you.

          I have copyright over KeyTool GUI.  You therefore cannot call your
          application "KeyTool GUI" or anything similar.  Lazgo Software has copyright
          and trademark over "KeyStore Explorer" so you cannot call it that either.

          KeyTool GUI is GPL software.  If your application contains code from KeyTool
          GUI then your application as a whole must obey the GPL license.  This means
          that you must release your own code as GPL and not under any other license
          terms.  The headers in the existing code must be left how you found them -
          that is with the GPL license and my copyright intact.

          I have no wish to be listed as author of your application.  Simply state on
          your web site and in the application that your application is based on a
          fork of KeyTool GUI of which I am the copyright owner.  For an example see
          the Portecle web site (
          http://portecle.sourceforge.net/) - Portecle is
          similar to your app in that it is a fork of KeyTool GUI.

          Let me know if you have any questions.

          - Wayne.

          ----------------------------------

          Dear Waner Grant:
             I've written a Keytool Eclipse Plugin which support most features of KeyStore
          2.4.
             As you know, KeyStore 2.4 is written in Swing, I rewirte your
          application by SWT.
          So that it has a native look and more, I integrate my XML signature module
          in this
          application.
             For more info, see
          http://dev2dev.bea.com.cn/bbs/thread.jspa?forumID=29304&threadID=31955&tstart=0
             And i will publish this Eclipse Plugin in next two weeks. Becasue wanner
          Grant
          is the first author of this software, So I plan to use his name as first
          author and mine
          as the second author.  Will this be reasonable?
             Any Advice would be great appreciately.


          Wayne的目的很簡單,他要求我不能使用Keytool GUI或者KeyStore Explorer類似的名稱, 并且他要求我
          必須使用GPL的許可證,這一點(diǎn)我非常不滿,我于是回信給他,強(qiáng)調(diào)我要求relicense GPL。我知道我這樣
          說有點(diǎn)對牛彈琴,因?yàn)樗麘?yīng)該不會授權(quán)我relicense。

          The shell is all written by me. And I will add signature and
           Watermark feature to this software,  I only use some
          Util Class of your KeyTool GUI such as KeyPairUtil, DigestUtil
          and X509CertUtil etc and of Course,I will not change the code
          and the header of them!
           
          Feel ease if I don't plan to abidance by GPL :)  I like Apache
          License only.
           
          The new release of SecureX Eclipse Plugin will all be free but
          i will opensource in the next release becasue the code is too
          bad:(

          Beta SecureX plugin will be publish next week, so if you have more
          advice, please let me know.
           
           
               regards
          david


          Wayne的回復(fù)同樣讓我感到很大的壓力,除非我必須遵循GPL,否則我似乎無所作為:

          David,

          >I only use some
          >Util Class of your KeyTool GUI such as KeyPairUtil, DigestUtil
          >and X509CertUtil etc and of Course,I will not change the code
          >and the header of them!
          >
          >Feel ease if I don't plan to abidance by GPL :)  I like Apache
          >License only.

          If an application contains GPL code then the whole application must be GPL.
          Your choices are:

          1) to not use any of KeyTool GUI code in your application
          2) or to license your application through the GPL.

          To do anything else will break the terms of the GPL license that protect
          KeyTool GUI - you will be breaking the law.  You can check this for yourself
          in the GPL license -
          http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html.  Section 2 b is
          the relevant part:

          "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in
          part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be
          licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
          this License."

          Basically you are deriving something from KeyTool GUI code that is GPL -
          even if you are only using a couple of files they are covered by the GPL
          license and anything they are used for must also be GPL as a whole.

          If you go ahead and any KeyTool GUI code within your application and do not
          license it as GPL then I will be forced to take action.  The reason I chose
          GPL as the license was to protect it from being re-licensed.

          >The new release of SecureX Eclipse Plugin will all be free but
          >i will opensource in the next release becasue the code is too
          >bad:(

          Again you cannot do this under the terms of the GPL - if you release a GPL
          project then the source code must be available.  I believe the same applies
          with Apache.

          Get in touch if you have any questions.

          Cheers,


          既然我必須遵循GPL,我只能學(xué)微軟的骯臟招數(shù)——模仿,并且聲明我會重寫他的所有類,
          同時(shí),我明確,China跟USA的國情有所不同,我完全有能力選擇Apache License而繞過
          源代碼創(chuàng)建者的授權(quán)(授權(quán)我Relicense)。
          我的回信如下:

          Wayne:
          >If you go ahead and any KeyTool GUI code within your application and do not
          >license it as GPL then I will be forced to take action. 
          I do think there must be some difference between countries, And when worked in
          USA, GPL should be respected but what about in Other Countries that have no
          law about GPL :)
           
          >The new release of SecureX Eclipse Plugin will all be free but
          >i will opensource in the next release becasue the code is too
          >bad:(
           
          What I mean is that i won't released source code that related your Keytool GUI
          until I entirely rewrite your util class(KeyPairUtil, DigestUtil and X509CertUtil).
          Btw,  I don't think KeyStore 2.X or 3.X can continued well when my free released of
          SecureX upgrade to 2.0(now it is 0.9, 1.0 next two week) in which I plan to integrated
          more features.
           
          Another question:  Should GPL prevent you from released KeyStore 2.4 from KeyTool GUI?
           
          Wayne, take it easy,  just Debate promote Understanding and Collaboration......
           
           
          Can you tell me which ACTION will you take to?

          Wayne的回信讓我感到振奮,他提到我的plan work只限制用于于Eclipse,意義不大,并且他說Portcele
          和JKeyManager都沒有超越過他的工作——KeyStore Explorer。他承認(rèn)我的工作將會損害他的商業(yè)利益,
          但他將會迎接這種挑戰(zhàn)。最后,他他的觀點(diǎn)同樣尖銳——不能修改GPL,除非不要使用他的代碼。

          David,

          >I do think there must be some difference between countries, And when worked
          >in
          >USA, GPL should be respected but what about in Other Countries that have no
          >law about GPL :)


          I don't want to get into a debate about software licenses and law.  Nobody
          is going to sue you no matter what happens - it would serve no purpose.  All
          I am asking is that you obey the existing software licenses for my code.  It
          is GPL and therefore cannot be relicensed to anything else except by the
          copyright holder - that is, me.  Others have created forks of the KeyTool
          GUI soure and respected this (for example see, Portecle).  I appreciate that
          you have gotten in contact with me about what you are doing.  However, you
          did ask for my advice and I have advised you not to break the existing
          license.  GPL is still open source so why not use it?

          > >The new release of SecureX Eclipse Plugin will all be free but
          > >i will opensource in the next release becasue the code is too
          > >bad:(
          >

          >Btw,  I don't think KeyStore 2.X or 3.X can continued well when my
          >free released of
          >SecureX upgrade to 2.0(now it is 0.9, 1.0 next two week) in which I plan to
          >integrated
          >more features.

          David, others have tired (Portcele, JKeyManger) and none have succeeded in
          surpassing my latter work.  I wish you every success with your work but your
          prediction of 90% coverage of features is an exaggeration even with your
          planned work.  In addition you are limiting your audience by writing a
          plug-in for Eclipse.  The bulk of my current users do not even know what
          Java is far less Eclipse.  You will get many users I am sure but as for it
          hurting my work - more mature efforts have failed.  I do honestly welcome
          the challenge - it always inspires me to create new features :)

          >Another question:  Should GPL prevent you from released KeyStore 2.4 from
          >KeyTool GUI?

          As I own the copyright to KeyTool GUI I can decide what license to release
          it under.  It is my own work after all :)

          >Wayne, take it easy,  just Debate promote Understanding and
          >Collaboration......

          No problem - I will discuss this with you as long as you require.  I wish
          you no ill will - I am simply attempting to protect my open source work.

          >Can you tell me which ACTION will you take to?

          I hope to take no action.  I am happy for you to build on as much of my open
          source work as you like.  I have had no problem with others building on the
          old GUI and utility classes - but they did obey the license.  As you say you
          only require the use of a couple of crypto utility classes.  All I require
          is your agreement that you will license as GPL or not use my code.

          I truely hope we can resolve this matter.

          Talk to you soon.

          Cheers,
          - Wayne.


          面對Wayne的軟硬兼施,我的言辭可能過于刻薄,并且我本人可能對收費(fèi)軟件過于介意,于是
          開始回?fù)簦?/P>

          Wanye,
                 I do really have two worries:
                 1. I hope sofeware is free, GPL's finally object is make more software free and
           opensource is just a measure.  After you make KeyStore Explorer a branch from
           original KeyTool GUI, it is you that firstly not follow the GPL, right? Of course, because
           you are the author, you are the owner, and you'll the authorize yourself to not
           follow.
                2. I checkout the protecle project( http://portecle.sourceforge.net/) which you recommend,
          and i started to agree what you said:
          ->David, others have tired (Portcele, JKeyManger) and none have succeeded in
          _>surpassing my latter work.
                Protecle is just KeyTool GUI 1.7 and add only jar sign, little features are added. And
          most important, it doesn't provide a native look. What's that mean? It means that when my OS is
          using GBK, Protecle and KeyTool GUI 1.7 can not display correctly.
                3. You say that:
          -> In addition you are limiting your audience by writing a plug-in for Eclipse.
                I forgot to tell you, that you make are wrong, I am writing SecureX follow the RCP standard
          so that it can work as Eclipse Plugin or work stand alone. That means I can let my audience to use
          SecureX even they don't have Eclipse installed.
                Please Check : http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Rich_Client_Platform
               4. You suggested that
          -> I hope to take no action.  I am happy for you to build on as much of my open
          -> source work as you like.  I have had no problem with others building on the
          -> old GUI and utility classes - but they did obey the license.  As you say you
          -> only require the use of a couple of crypto utility classes.  All I require
          -> is your agreement that you will license as GPL or not use my code.
               I must let anyone knows that my purpose is to make software free, and open
          is only a sort of means. I always hope that software should not PAY BEFORE USE.
          I am worried that follow GPL will let most of my future work serve your KeyStore
          Explorer(which is not open or free).
               And when i and my teammates added more features on SecureX, it means that
          this RCP framework standarded has enought features, I will open the framework (2.0 version)
          so that others can plugin their secure feature into SecureX framework(thty only needed
          to follow the RCP Plugin standarded) and they can choose open their source or not(Like
          what Eclipse look now) and they can choose free manner or charge manner.
               5, You are worried that my work will hurt you work:
          -> You will get many users I am sure but as for it
          -> hurting my work - more mature efforts have failed.  I do honestly welcome
          -> the challenge - it always inspires me to create new features :)
              I guess you are worried that KeyStore Explorer will turn to use SecureX and your
          earning will reduce?
              If that's true, I must get off you worry:
              You can add features to my SecureX framework and not evened to disclose you code(see
          RCP Standard above) and make it charge :) My License won't prevent you from charge and won't
          require to opensource.
             
              My MSN is : scut_hzq@hotmail.com but i use it rarely.

              Wait for you reply.


          Wayne的回信讓我感到我在表述GPL的時(shí)候有誤,我感到有些慚愧,他提到他的KeyStore Explorer不可能
          使用我的SecureX(如果我的SecureX被License為GPL),我檢查我上面的回信,確實(shí)是我寫錯了,我應(yīng)該
          擔(dān)心的是GPL讓SecureX很難應(yīng)用于商業(yè)用途。

          David,

          >I do really have two worries:
          >1. I hope sofeware is free, GPL's finally object is make more
          >software free and
          >opensource is just a measure.

          If you use the GPL then nobody, including me, can use your work in a
          non-open source project - I would have to make my own work GPL - which I
          have no intentions of doing.  My current work is closed source and will
          remain so.  If you use another open source license such as Apache or MIT
          then the opposite is true - such licenses are more liberal when it comes to
          commercial uses for software.

          >After you make KeyStore Explorer a branch from
          >original KeyTool GUI, it is you that firstly not follow the GPL, right? Of
          >course, because you are the author, you are the owner, and you'll the
          >authorize yourself to
          >not follow.

          That's correct - only the copyright owner can relicense GPL software.  Note
          that that meqans that I cannot relicense any of your work for my purposes.

          >I must let anyone knows that my purpose is to make software free, and
          >open is only a sort of means. I always hope that software should not PAY
          >BEFORE
          >USE.

          That was my purpose for KeyTool GUI and why I chose the GPL - nobody but me
          can relicense it.

          >I am worried that follow GPL will let most of my future work serve your
          >KeyStore Explorer(which is not open or free).

          As I said above I cannot use any GPL code in my work.  By using the GPL your
          work will be protected.  In addition I can assure you that I will not even
          be looking at your code.

          >5, You are worried that my work will hurt you work:

          I am not worried.  I welcome the competition.

          >     My MSN is : scut_hzq@hotmail.com but i use it rarely.

          I have added you to my contacts list and should be online for much of today.

          It sounds like we are getting closer to an understanding.  You want to
          protect your work and make sure it will always be free for others to use,
          right?  The solution appears to be to use the GPL.  Which would be the best
          thing to do anyway from a legal standpoint as no licenses would be broken.

          Cheers,
          - Wayne.


          在中國,GPL跟Apache這兩種許可證,其實(shí)根本沒有人去關(guān)心,因?yàn)榇蟛糠秩硕际怯帽I版,
          誰又會去關(guān)心許可證?
          我承認(rèn)我使用了wayne的代碼,他寫了不少工具類,并且我使用了它們,如果因?yàn)镚PL阻止
          了我選擇其他的License,我寧愿違反它。


          Wayne后續(xù)的郵件我不方便公開,因?yàn)槲覀兙蚻icense這個(gè)問題上翻臉了,Wayne甚至這樣說:

          I will not be rejoining any open source projects for KeyTool GUI or any
          other projects.  Why on earth would I want to give my work away for nothing?
           I think that I have done enough already by writing KeyTool GUI in the
          first place.

          既然他已經(jīng)對開源不敢任何興趣,我又何必再跟他糾纏呢,他繼續(xù)寫他的商業(yè)軟件,我繼續(xù)
          為我的SecureX添加新的功能,我的目標(biāo)并不是KeyStore Explorer, 我只是想讓更多人能使用
          我的SecureX插件更方便地使用Java證書庫。

          posted on 2006-02-21 13:41 david.turing 閱讀(18939) 評論(34)  編輯  收藏

          評論

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人,正式迎接Wayer Grant的挑戰(zhàn) 2006-02-21 15:39 曹曉鋼

          說老實(shí)話,我覺得這件事情上是你做的不對。
          特別是這句話:
          "我承認(rèn)我使用了wayne的代碼,他寫了不少工具類,并且我使用了它們,如果因?yàn)镚PL阻止了我選擇其他的License,我寧愿違反它。"


            回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人,正式迎接Wayer Grant的挑戰(zhàn) 2006-02-21 16:03 scud(飛云小俠)

          有空自己就重寫了

          做事就要地道,否則自己心里不也是不舒服嗎 呵呵

          gpl就是麻煩  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人,正式迎接Wayer Grant的挑戰(zhàn) 2006-02-21 16:28 Roger Chen

          我也不建議你通過這種方式將這個(gè)項(xiàng)目發(fā)布成Apache License,實(shí)際上除了你受到法律方面的影響外,該項(xiàng)目的使用者也會受到法律上的影響。

          但是,如果你的項(xiàng)目并不僅僅局限于Protecle和KeytoolGUI,那么你可以選擇將你的項(xiàng)目發(fā)布成Apache License,但是不要附帶Protecle和KeytoolGUI的任何類庫。

          作為可選擇的一部分,如果項(xiàng)目用戶不使用這些庫,他們遵照的協(xié)議的Apache License;如果使用這些類庫,那么他們則須遵照GPL。但是這個(gè)選擇權(quán)在于項(xiàng)目用戶,你本身并不承擔(dān)任何法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人,正式迎接Wayer Grant的挑戰(zhàn) 2006-02-22 08:56 david.turing

          謝謝你們的回復(fù),我現(xiàn)在面臨的問題是,Keytool GUI僅僅是SecureX的一個(gè)子集,我自己還編寫了自己的SecureSign(我想將它用于Apache License),它使用了Java證書庫,而Keytool Gui僅僅是創(chuàng)建和維護(hù)Java證書庫,我覺得將Keytool GUI捆綁進(jìn)SecureX會讓我的SecureSign插件變得更容易使用。

          我很難接受GPL,這并不是從我本人的角度出發(fā),而是從用戶的角度出發(fā),我相信任何中國用戶都更喜歡Apache License,我正在研究許可證的涵義,但如果我僅僅是重寫Keytool GUI的工具類(如scud所說的),我想我并不難做到這點(diǎn),但這樣做是否合適,是否有違自由軟件精神?  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人,正式迎接Wayer Grant的挑戰(zhàn) 2006-02-23 10:04 曹曉鋼

          為了避免這種法律問題,應(yīng)該是完全脫離原來的有沖突的代碼。

          另外我挺同情原作者的,他沒有犯任何錯誤,實(shí)際上也沒有什么可以指摘的地方。  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2006-02-23 10:39 david.turing

          老曹,這恰恰是我到現(xiàn)在為止都沒有發(fā)布SecureX的原因阿,除非我有空改寫,否則我不會發(fā)布:)還有一個(gè)問題想不通,如果一個(gè)軟件被強(qiáng)行ReLicense,其他人使用了這個(gè)Relicense的軟件,那責(zé)任該是Relicense那人負(fù)責(zé)還是使用者負(fù)責(zé)呢?  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2006-02-23 16:06 曹曉鋼

          這個(gè)...應(yīng)該是用戶沒有責(zé)任去校驗(yàn)所使用的軟件是否被不恰當(dāng)?shù)膔elicense的,應(yīng)該責(zé)任是發(fā)布者的。但是,sco不是也告過linux的用戶的么,他就認(rèn)為是linux 廠商錯誤的把它擁有版權(quán)的unix代碼重新relicense了....  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2006-02-23 21:10 david.turing

          在源代碼問題上,Linux世界確實(shí)比較極端,但我覺得在OS領(lǐng)域,GPL很值得我們敬仰,我見過很多優(yōu)秀的程序員,他們定位在GPL之后,并沒有ReLicense他們自己的代碼,而Wayne將他的軟件Relicense成商業(yè)軟件,并告訴我,惟有他有能力這樣做(因?yàn)樗窃髡撸l(fā)布的代碼連類名都作了Abfuse,別人跟本不知道他有沒有使用了GPL版權(quán)的代碼(雖然他聲稱沒有,我也相信他沒有,但你相信我沒有嗎?)。  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2006-03-09 15:36 ShiningRay

          以小人之心,度君子之腹  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2006-10-05 17:32 Compl Yue Still

          偶然看到這篇文章。

          首先,我對你執(zhí)意要違反軟件原作者意圖的努力表示反對,作者擁有其版權(quán),并且選擇了自己認(rèn)為合適的協(xié)議發(fā)布了軟件,這本身是有法律效力的。我想如果別人執(zhí)意用他自己的理由要求你修改你創(chuàng)造的軟件的協(xié)議的話,你也不會覺得舒服,更不可能無條件地屈服。

          其次,我不知道你是不是在修改這里爭論焦點(diǎn)的“Keytool GUI”,的任何代碼之后才捆綁在你的SecureX組件里發(fā)布的。 如果是這樣的話,那么這屬于Modification,則必須將修改過的這個(gè)版本以GPL協(xié)議發(fā)布才算合法。 但是如果你并沒有修改其中任何東西,而只是將其“捆綁”于你的發(fā)行版本之中,那么這個(gè)行為并非Modification,而是Redistribution,那么按照GPL,你只需要保證你的用戶能夠以足夠明顯核容易的方式獲得對應(yīng)"Keytool GUI"的源代碼,那么就沒有任何法律沖突,也根本不需要relicense。

          即便你對你發(fā)行的“Keytool GUI”版本有所修改,你也完全可以選擇將這個(gè)版本的“Keytool GUI”獨(dú)立以GPL發(fā)布,而你的SecureX照樣可以用你喜歡的License(Apache 甚至其他)來發(fā)布,商業(yè)軟件完全可以捆綁GPL軟件。

          除非你的SecureX事實(shí)上是“Keytool GUI”的派生版(Derived Work),也就是說主要是通過對“Keytool GUI”的“修改”來獲得的,這種情況下它才需要你如文章中所說這么費(fèi)勁的跟原作者去爭執(zhí),否則其實(shí)完全沒有必要。

          原作者確實(shí)有以其他協(xié)議重新發(fā)布軟件的權(quán)利,在法律上他并不是把已經(jīng)發(fā)布的GPL版本重新發(fā)布,而是將他的原始創(chuàng)造內(nèi)容以新的協(xié)議來發(fā)布,如果不是這樣,那么他的行為也屬非法。 而他已經(jīng)以GPL發(fā)布的版本,任何人(包括你)都有權(quán)利去進(jìn)行修改并以GPL重新發(fā)布。 但是GPL并不覆蓋最初以它發(fā)布內(nèi)容之外的作品內(nèi)容,所以只要你的SecureX不是從“Keytool GUI”的源碼上修改而獲得的,而是你自己編寫的,那么它就不受隨“Keytool GUI”發(fā)行的GPL協(xié)議控制,而你才是它的原作者,你可以以任何你自己選擇的協(xié)議進(jìn)行發(fā)行。  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2007-10-17 17:06 coolpanda

          我是在國外一家軟件公司,公司的發(fā)布的一個(gè)軟件是免費(fèi)給非商業(yè)使用的(比GPL要嚴(yán)格一些),但是里面用到了一個(gè)GPL的第三方軟件,現(xiàn)在就遇到這個(gè)licence issue. 我的任務(wù)就是改用其它licence的類似軟件.

          因?yàn)閯e人是作者,我對你執(zhí)意要違反軟件原作者意圖的努力表示反對.  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2007-10-17 17:31 coolpanda

          順便說一下,在GPL和apache license 之間還有一個(gè) LGPL, 似乎跟你需要的情況類似,你可以參看一下  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2008-06-16 07:41 賀偉

          fdsfdsfds  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2008-06-16 07:42 賀偉

          gdfsgd  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2008-11-12 10:49 oldherl

          強(qiáng)烈反對你這種執(zhí)意違反GPL的行為。  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2008-11-18 16:24 謝火鳥

          你他媽的,我就支持GPL,GPL存在就有他的道理,開源就免費(fèi)么?誰他媽傻了吧嘰的,你不想要更多的收入?憑什么我寫的東西就免費(fèi)給別人用?你了解開源嗎?了解自由軟件和開源的區(qū)別嗎?隨隨便便就評論中國人如何,你他媽沒這個(gè)資格!麻省的爺們都用FreeBSD,你牛、你也FreeBSD得了,別Apache了一步到位!  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2008-11-18 16:32 謝火鳥

          還有,你公開這些信件經(jīng)過對方同意嗎,至少應(yīng)該改一下名字吧?你這叫什么素質(zhì),你啊你 還在這里大放厥詞。  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人[未登錄] 2008-12-18 00:59 James

          首先,我想說你的這種執(zhí)意另選license的做法是嚴(yán)重錯誤的,這是對GPL開源社區(qū)的冒犯,你應(yīng)該尊重原作者的著作權(quán)以及這個(gè)社區(qū)的意志。當(dāng)然,你可以尋找Apache License或BSD License等下的替代品,然后重新發(fā)布你的產(chǎn)品。你也可以重新實(shí)現(xiàn)那個(gè)庫的功能,但是這種實(shí)現(xiàn)不應(yīng)該是對別人代碼的拷貝、重新鍵入,抄別人的設(shè)計(jì)。一定要尊重別人的這種文化,GPL主要是為了使自由軟件在競爭中不會失去優(yōu)勢,如果商業(yè)軟件總是可以任意使用自由軟件,而自由軟件卻不能使用商業(yè)軟件,則自由軟件就會處于劣勢地位而總是落后。這是GPL所努力營造的一種社區(qū)文化,你怎么能因?yàn)樽约旱膼酆谩⒗妫`背原作者以及這個(gè)社區(qū)的意愿呢?  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2009-01-28 14:30 Jonnie Walker

          我只能說你是個(gè)地地道道、徹徹底底的法盲!!看看你寫的這段話:
          "I do think there must be some difference between countries, And when worked in USA, GPL should be respected but what about in Other Countries that have no law about GPL :)"

          首先,英美法系采用的是不成文法,根本沒有關(guān)于GPL、Apache License的law;
          其次,GPL和Apache License都是軟件許可協(xié)議的一種,是軟件的著作權(quán)所有者與使用者之間的協(xié)議,在世界上絕大部分國家都有關(guān)于合同的相關(guān)法律,在中國必須遵守合同法。

          你是自愿使用別人的東西,沒有人拿刀架在你脖子上強(qiáng)迫你使用,你就必須要遵守GPL,就像你自愿簽了合同當(dāng)然必須要遵守一樣。你現(xiàn)在用了別人的東西、又不想遵守合同,這叫知法犯法。

          要中國人都像你這樣,別人還真以為中國完全沒有法律呢!太丟人了!  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2009-02-12 16:34 vin

          做了婊子還要立牌坊 你這種程序員簡直就是禍害  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2009-04-24 00:55 范德薩范德薩

          管他什么GPL,用的操作系統(tǒng) 都還是盜版的

          而且電腦里面除了免費(fèi)軟件,沒有一樣是正版的  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2009-05-13 23:40 slna

          如果你不尊重別人的 License, 那別人也不會尊重你的 License, 那你的 project 選擇用什麼 License 還不是都一樣。  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2009-06-16 17:47 jigble

          我覺得你應(yīng)該給Wayne回封信表示道歉,你的行為是對原作者的極度不尊重,(雖然我也尊重你的想法,而且我只是個(gè)無名小卒,沒你那么強(qiáng)的技術(shù)),你的執(zhí)拗讓原作者受了傷,你應(yīng)該為你的行為道歉。也許你的行為多少損害了我們中國人在這方面的形象,你的想法也許沒什么不好,但是你的這種行為絕對錯誤。  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2010-07-05 09:57 xaverine

          我去看了一下GPL的內(nèi)容
          其實(shí)GPL是完全的開放(強(qiáng)制性)
          也就是只要你使用了GPL的代碼
          您就必須要開放"所有"的代碼
          包含您的創(chuàng)作
          在另一方面Wayne本身也沒有權(quán)利將GPL的代碼relicense(就算他是原作者)
          您只要使用任何一部分Wayne的source也必須是GPL
          您是無法relicense就跟Wayne一樣
            回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2010-09-29 17:11 路人甲

          有病。你會不會覺得銀行保安系統(tǒng)不順眼,你就是要去搶銀行?
            回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人[未登錄] 2010-12-28 09:36 maple

          坦白地說是不是樣板戲看多了,不要選擇斗爭,沒有好處的。
          你既然是用他的代碼就該遵守授權(quán),這是天經(jīng)地義的。

          我個(gè)人不看盜版碟片、不用盜版軟件:包括操作系統(tǒng)是自己購買的。  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人[未登錄] 2011-02-03 06:57 ds

          丟人。  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2012-05-19 11:16 dirtyacc@126.com

          @ds
          同意。這么丟人的事居然還拿出來大書特書,好像自己抗戰(zhàn)勝利似得。

          還說“他已經(jīng)對開源沒興趣。。。”,明明是自己不遵守開源協(xié)議,這人也有意思,居然還耐著性子回了那么多郵件  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2012-09-04 14:16 一只程序猿

          實(shí)在不能理解為何您使用原作者的代碼還強(qiáng)硬的想要違背原作者的意愿和GPL,然后還說出宣戰(zhàn)這種話,好似取得巨大勝利一般,無法理解!不管是對作者,對法律,對協(xié)議,連起碼的尊重都沒有!  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2014-07-04 11:19 程序猿

          不明白為什么回復(fù)都是一片罵聲,難度你們修改過GPL的軟件都開源了嗎?難道你們的windows是正版的?難度你們的VS也是正版的?  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2014-08-08 17:34 Snoopy

          >難道你們修改過GPL的軟件都開源了嗎?
          這不廢話么? 等客戶把你codebase review出一堆問題, 到時(shí)候就麻煩了.
          >難道你們的windows是正版的?
          當(dāng)然.
          >難度你們的VS也是正版的?
          VS是蝦米, 編譯不是用gcc么?  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2014-08-08 17:39 Snoopy

          而且我很奇怪, Eclipse的插件不是都普遍使用EPL-1.0的license么?  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2014-10-22 00:09 swordfeng

          @Snoopy
          這個(gè)是好早的文章。。。而且普遍不能代表特殊

          再來說說我對作者,和上面一些回復(fù)者的看法
          你們對GPL的理解有誤。

          1.原作者有權(quán)同時(shí)授予一個(gè)軟件GPL和商業(yè)協(xié)議,因?yàn)樗邪鏅?quán)
          2.無論是否修改,只要你的程序中帶有GPL軟件的代碼,或者動態(tài)鏈接到GPL軟件,你的軟件必須以GPL發(fā)布
          3.LGPL允許任意軟件的動態(tài)鏈接

          作者的行為毫無疑問是違法,但是中國法律監(jiān)管……誰都懂  回復(fù)  更多評論   

          # re: Apache License更適合中國人 2014-12-14 19:49 Hanbin

          一大堆口水戰(zhàn),不過毫無意義,無論最終結(jié)果如何,只要最后的代碼中使用了GPL代碼,relicense在法律上仍然是非法無效的,不管吵架有沒有吵贏,都改變不了這個(gè)法律后果。法律不是雙方當(dāng)事人協(xié)商好就能公然違反的,更不可能因其中一方的意志而改變。唯一的方法就是原GPL版權(quán)所有人將新軟件使用到的代碼以另外的協(xié)議重新發(fā)布。  回復(fù)  更多評論   


          只有注冊用戶登錄后才能發(fā)表評論。


          網(wǎng)站導(dǎo)航:
           

          導(dǎo)航

          統(tǒng)計(jì)

          常用鏈接

          留言簿(110)

          我參與的團(tuán)隊(duì)

          隨筆分類(126)

          隨筆檔案(155)

          文章分類(9)

          文章檔案(19)

          相冊

          搜索

          積分與排名

          最新隨筆

          最新評論

          閱讀排行榜

          評論排行榜

          主站蜘蛛池模板: 宜川县| 拜泉县| 陇西县| 霍邱县| 长沙市| 清新县| 泰州市| 贵定县| 林西县| 霍邱县| 息烽县| 乌兰察布市| 琼中| 保德县| 安吉县| 兖州市| 从化市| 湖南省| 神农架林区| 资讯 | 辽阳县| 长顺县| 吉木萨尔县| 孟连| 黄平县| 利辛县| 丰镇市| 盈江县| 寿宁县| 甘泉县| 高要市| 西乌珠穆沁旗| 太谷县| 武功县| 商河县| 桂林市| 高尔夫| 扎兰屯市| 普宁市| 汉中市| 洛南县|