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

[C Y]

--- Bill Page <address@hidden> wrote:

> > The binary only bits are clearly NOT released in source code to
> > the general public under ANY license at this time.
> 
> That is entirely unclear to me. The Aldor Public License does not
> distinguish between binary versus source code formats. It does state
> specifically what one's obligations would be *if* one were to make
> modifications to the source code. If you read the intention of the
> Aldor Public License and the history section of the aldor.org web
> site, it gives the distinct impression that Aldor in toto is publicly
> available.

However, since this is apparently not the case (I assume the compiler
source code is somewhere other than in the distribution) it must be
assumed that this omission was intentional until proven otherwise.  The
fact that there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes on this
would seem to confirm the issue is not straightforward.
 
> But as Tim said in his earlier message: we are not lawyers so
> arguing about wording is rather pointless.

True.

> As far as I can see it was aldor.org's decision simply to withhold
> the source code from the distribution, possibly with the (good)
> intentions of controlling modifications to the source. I think this
> happened before the open source development model became as well
> established as it is today. People just did not know how well it
> would work to allow open updating of publicly accessible source
> code repositories. Contrary to some fears, it has not resulted
> in "chaos". Instead we now have versions of linux that are more
> than competitive with both closed source unix and Windows. And
> companies like Sun are scrabbling to open their previously closed
> source products at quickly as possible.

Which is probably why there IS still work going on to make it happen. 
I can readily accept that the legal aspects of this are not simple to
work through.  Mike Dewar's update that there is still work in progress
is very encouraging to me.

> > Which is why the discussions of improving SPAD have gained
> > momentum recently.  If we don't want to wait on Aldor, improving
> > SPAD or starting anew are the only viable options.
> 
> I still don't consider it viable in spite of the fact that (finally!)
> we do have some developers (Gaby and Waldek) who are capable and
> perhaps motivated. After all, some estimates say that it took over
> $1,000,000 and more than 3 man-years to develop Aldor and this was
> done by people directly involved in the Axiom/ScratchPad project.

True.  Whether open source could duplicate such an effort is in my mind
an open question.
 
> > Taking unapproved action with Aldor would be an unmitigated
> > disaster legally and public relations wise, to say nothing of
> > how it would be viewed by the copyright holders (who have already
> > been very generous.)
> 
> I think you greatly exaggrate. Everyone has already publicly stated
> that they agree with making Aldor open source.

Yes, but the viability of open source rests on a healthy respect for
copyright and legality.  Morally, re-licensing the code willy-nilly
would be about the same as taking GPL code and incorporating it into a
commercial product.  Even if the original authors had said that might
be acceptable under the right conditions, doing it without their
explicit approval would be a Bad Idea.  Aldor.org and NAG MUST be
allowed to do as they please with their work, the same as we are
allowed to do what we please with our own.  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.)
 
> > 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.
> 
> From my point of view, to err on the side of caution is equivalent
> to doing nothing.

I would have to hear a professional legal opinion to convince me there
is any other option here.  It seems quite straightforward - if
Aldor.org and NAG say "not yet", that's the last word.  It's their
code.
 
> > Aldor I think is very clearly NOT GPL or Modified BSD, and unless
> > and until they decide to change that we are obligated to respect
> > that decision.
> > 
> 
> Have you read the Aldor Public License? It looks pretty much like
> GPL to me.

This part looks like it might not be GPL compatible:

(b) you grant Aldor.org a royalty-free license to use, modify or
redistribute your modifications without limitation

"without limitation" would seem to me to mean you are granting rights
to Aldor.org over and above those of the GPL.  Again though, this is
one of those lawyer questions. (Sorry Tim.)  Let's say Aldor.org wants
to release a commercial version of Aldor - under this license, they can
incorporate any work based off the Aldor code into a closed source
binary distribution.  (That's not to say they would do so, of course,
but legal documents are where people are supposed to consider worst
case scenarios.)

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

Cheers,
CY


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sponsored Link

Compare mortgage rates for today. 
Get up to 5 free quotes. 
Www2.nextag.com