By the time this reaches all of you, it's probably not the first time you have read about it.
http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/ida/jsps/index.jsp?fuseAction=showDocument&par...
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
European administrations should share software resources, a report published by IDA says
IDA has released the results of an independent study on promoting the re-use of software owned by public administrations. The study recommends the creation of a software clearing house to which administrations can "donate" software. This facility, which would concentrate on applications specific for the needs of the public sector, could encourage the replication of good practice in eGovernment services.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I haven't had a lot of time, and I've just skimmed the terminology and legal approach parts of the document.
In the terminology section, they explain several terms and give a short sermon on the OSI and the FSF over the discussion the best term to be used.
Evidently, throughout the document, the 'opensource' term is what seemed to be accepted.
It bothers me a little that to explain what is Free Software they resort to list the DFSG and just provide a link to the Free Software definition.
It also says: 'But if you really INCLUDE significant parts of copylefted code in your software, this software must be redistributed under the same license.' providing the GPL as an example.
I don't know if this documents can (or how easily) be revised, but at least this should be rephrased... it's not just a significant part but any part. Whoever does not like it, does not have to use it... if they lost 5000 man/days/month to develop something, they can very well loose the 10 man/days/month that represents the certain smaller and non significant part they want to include, for instance.
I'm sure there are more little problems here and there, but what little I've read seems to indicate that this document may be a very positive step towards the future.
Hugs, rui
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
It also says: 'But if you really INCLUDE significant parts of copylefted code in your software, this software must be redistributed under the same license.' providing the GPL as an example.
I don't know if this documents can (or how easily) be revised, but at least this should be rephrased... it's not just a significant part but any part.
It's a significant part indeed. Insignificant parts, such as a few "usual" lines, are not restricted by copyright (and therefore also not by GPL, of course).
IANAL, Frank
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 10:36:31PM +0200, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
I don't know if this documents can (or how easily) be revised, but at least this should be rephrased... it's not just a significant part but any part.
It's a significant part indeed. Insignificant parts, such as a few "usual" lines, are not restricted by copyright (and therefore also not by GPL, of course).
I guess that what is significant is a very subjective thing, since significant may be LOC, minimalistic math skill, etc...
According to the GPL FAQ, size doesn't matter, although it is advised:
* What if the work is not much longer than the license itself? If a single program is that short, you may as well use a simple all-permissive license for it, rather than the GNU GPL.
However, what does it matter if the code is that small but it is the essence of the idea? Can significant only mean LOC ? I don't believe so.
The around 340 lines of the GPL could represent quite some important math theorems (and respective proofs). Are they less significant than a a gigabyte of 1+1.... ?
Still, I've read a couple more paragraphs, and I'm worried because at some parts they seem to indicate the main advantages of the GNU GPL as if they are disadvantages...
Cheers,
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 03:48:06PM +0100, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
Still, I've read a couple more paragraphs, and I'm worried because at some parts they seem to indicate the main advantages of the GNU GPL as if they are disadvantages...
We should make a full analysis of the paper and possible create a document which corrects the problems we see. Anybody feels like helping with this?
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 04:48:32PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 03:48:06PM +0100, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
Still, I've read a couple more paragraphs, and I'm worried because at some parts they seem to indicate the main advantages of the GNU GPL as if they are disadvantages...
We should make a full analysis of the paper and possible create a document which corrects the problems we see. Anybody feels like helping with this?
I'd love to, but let me have the time to read the full document first.
Cheers,
On Wed, 2002-07-10 at 16:48, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
According to the GPL FAQ, size doesn't matter, although it is advised:
- What if the work is not much longer than the license itself? If a single program is that short, you may as well use a simple all-permissive license for it, rather than the GNU GPL.
However, what does it matter if the code is that small but it is the essence of the idea? Can significant only mean LOC ? I don't believe so.
copyright does not "protect" ideas, only specific implementations.
The around 340 lines of the GPL could represent quite some important math theorems (and respective proofs). Are they less significant than a a gigabyte of 1+1.... ?
that does not matter, as a 340 lines code can be easily analyzed and recoded in other form, so in that case putting it in Public Domain (where that is possible) or using the GPL would not make much difference.
Simo.
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 02:55:32AM +0200, Simo Sorce wrote:
copyright does not "protect" ideas, only specific implementations.
That's the whole point, right? Unfourtunately a freely expressed idea can be improved in a proprietary way, which is not something I can wish for.
The around 340 lines of the GPL could represent quite some important math theorems (and respective proofs). Are they less significant than a a gigabyte of 1+1.... ?
that does not matter, as a 340 lines code can be easily analyzed and recoded in other form, so in that case putting it in Public Domain (where that is possible) or using the GPL would not make much difference.
340 loc can express quite complex ideas that may take hundreds of years to prove... :) so I disagree with the 'easy analisys' point of view.
Quantity is hardly ever a good measure (and yes, I know of the saying: if brute force does not solve your problem, you're not using enough!)
Cheers,
On Fri, 2002-07-12 at 16:24, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 02:55:32AM +0200, Simo Sorce wrote:
copyright does not "protect" ideas, only specific implementations.
That's the whole point, right? Unfourtunately a freely expressed idea can be improved in a proprietary way, which is not something I can wish for.
You say you would like Patents to "protect" ideas? I would disagree heartedly.
Free Software have as a goal to spread information and ideas, restricting ideas is very illiberal.
340 loc can express quite complex ideas that may take hundreds of years to prove... :) so I disagree with the 'easy analisys' point of view.
What I mean is that you can study and implement it in another way, even if you do not understand exactly all the implications, however in such case of complexity you can easily put it into GPL, I think 340 Loc are enough to be protected.
Quantity is hardly ever a good measure (and yes, I know of the saying: if brute force does not solve your problem, you're not using enough!)
not may way to do things, I dislike violence (natural consequence of brute force).
Simo.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 04:19:18PM +0200, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Fri, 2002-07-12 at 16:24, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 02:55:32AM +0200, Simo Sorce wrote:
copyright does not "protect" ideas, only specific implementations.
That's the whole point, right? Unfourtunately a freely expressed idea can be improved in a proprietary way, which is not something I can wish for.
You say you would like Patents to "protect" ideas? I would disagree heartedly.
Good gracious, no, where could/did you ever get idea from? Please, care to reread the sentence... :)
Free Software have as a goal to spread information and ideas, restricting ideas is very illiberal.
I don't like to have positive developments over information or ideas being taken away intentionally to gain more profit. So there has to be some restricting. Since we live in a world of copyright, copyleft (specially in the form of the GNU GPL) is perfect. I'd rather we didn't have the need to use GPL, though it's currently the only way to stop the harmfull appropriation :|
Quantity is hardly ever a good measure (and yes, I know of the saying: if brute force does not solve your problem, you're not using enough!)
not may way to do things, I dislike violence (natural consequence of brute force).
Argh, does one have to carefully place a smiley in every sentence in order to have some pun appreciated?
Peachy,