PHP5 JSON Still In A Licensing Mess

[AdamW]

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.

The replacement was written by a Fedora contributor and is already packaged in Fedora, as php-pecl-jsonc .

[Serge]

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.

People can say a lot of things about how they perceive different licenses and your compliance with them. In the US and many other similar jurisdictions, they can't bring suit against you if they are not the rights holder.

[Serge]

I didn't say anything at all about cheeseburgers, so you can please stop trying to change what we are talking about. And I couldnt care any less whether people agreed with me or not. The first statement I made was that it was just my opinion. You are free to disagree with me if you want.... But you see theres that word free..... In all commonly accepted usages of that word it means something different than what Stallman tries to impose on it....

Any word can be defined by its context. The context that Stallman imposes is definitely not the common context.

EDIT: Is the GPL open source? Definitely yes and permanently. Is it free? Definitely no. It's the copyleft that makes it so. It makes it permanently open source, but also makes it so I'm not free to do a lot of things.

I think the "permanently" part is very important. I believe the GPL is a compromise on the ideals of absolute freedom in order to make the freedoms that it does allow perpetual. In that respect, I consider the GPL to be more free than licenses that allow the freedom to take away others' freedom.

[Serge]

The replacement was written by a Fedora contributor and is already packaged in Fedora, as php-pecl-jsonc .

Finally some good news.

[GreatEmerald]

People can say a lot of things about how they perceive different licenses and your compliance with them. In the US and many other similar jurisdictions, they can't bring suit against you if they are not the rights holder.

The rights holder is around, and you can't be certain he won't sue you for using the software for what he perceives to be evil.

[WorBlux]

I hope Microsoft sues everyone who uses this license because they see any software that competes with their own as evil, and to them, the software is evil and unlawful.

Unless Microsoft held the copyrights they would be laughed out of court as they would lack standing to sue.

[Serge]

The rights holder is around, and you can't be certain he won't sue you for using the software for what he perceives to be evil.

I agree completely, and also wish to add that those rights can transfer to someone else. However, without legal claim to those rights, Sidicas's hypothetical development shop is very unlikely to have success in suing you.

[doom_Oo7]

At least my lawful good paladin will be able to use this piece of code without problems

[dee.]

I didn't say anything at all about cheeseburgers, so you can please stop trying to change what we are talking about.

Ok, I can see this is going to be harder than I thought.

You see, there's such a thing as metaphors. They're a literary device, they're similar to similes, and both metaphors and similes are analogies. Analogies are when you describe some thing by talking about some other thing. When you are trying to explain a complex thing to a person who seems to have some trouble understanding it, it's often good to use analogies, since they allow you to explain the thing in much more simpler terms, and compare a complex issue to a simpler one to make it easier to understand.

So! The cheeseburger is not actually a cheeseburger. Can you guess what is meant by the cheeseburger? That'll be your homework for next time.

And I couldnt care any less whether people agreed with me or not. The first statement I made was that it was just my opinion. You are free to disagree with me if you want.... But you see theres that word free..... In all commonly accepted usages of that word it means something different than what Stallman tries to impose on it....

No it doesn't. You're trying to redefine words again. The GPL provides freedoms to use, distribute, examine and modify the software. It protects the user from someone taking away those freedoms. The word Free (libre) is being used correctly.

Any word can be defined by its context. The context that Stallman imposes is definitely not the common context.

Yes it is. It's free as in free speech. Not free as in free beer. Blame the english language for using the same word for two entirely different and unrelated concepts.

EDIT: Is the GPL open source? Definitely yes and permanently. Is it free? Definitely no. It's the copyleft that makes it so. It makes it permanently open source, but also makes it so I'm not free to do a lot of things.

You're always "not free to do a lot of things", so by that definition, nothing in this world is free. Every freedom is limited. You have free speech, but you're not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theather. Yet, we don't call the freedom of speech "non-free" simply because it's a limited freedom. (Hey, will you look at that, we're using analogies again!) The BSD license also limits your freedom (by 3 or 4 clauses, even), and even if you release under public domain, there can still be some implied limitations depending on jurisdiction. Even disregarding the license, there are STILL limitations in the law limiting what you're allowed to do with any software. You're not free to take the source code, print it, and bludgeon someone to death with the stack of papers, for example.

You're free to use GPL software however you want, as long as you're not taking away other people's freedoms to do the same. It's a limited freedom, just like every other freedom ever. How does it not fit the commonly accepted meaning of "free"?

[duby229]

Ok, I can see this is going to be harder than I thought.

You see, there's such a thing as metaphors. They're a literary device, they're similar to similes, and both metaphors and similes are analogies. Analogies are when you describe some thing by talking about some other thing. When you are trying to explain a complex thing to a person who seems to have some trouble understanding it, it's often good to use analogies, since they allow you to explain the thing in much more simpler terms, and compare a complex issue to a simpler one to make it easier to understand.

So! The cheeseburger is not actually a cheeseburger. Can you guess what is meant by the cheeseburger? That'll be your homework for next time.

First of all your analogy doesnt work, a cheeseburger is a physical object. Can you tell me what physical object a free is? Is your cheeseburger a free? I would love to hear you try to wiggle around trying to explain how this analogy works.

Come on now. You can't possibly be that stupid.

No it doesn't. You're trying to redefine words again. The GPL provides freedoms to use, distribute, examine and modify the software. It protects the user from someone taking away those freedoms. The word Free (libre) is being used correctly.

I disagree, and stated clearly already why I do. My disagreement with you is what a freedom is.

Yes it is. It's free as in free speech. Not free as in free beer. Blame the english language for using the same word for two entirely different and unrelated concepts.

I never said anything at all about monetary terms.

You're always "not free to do a lot of things", so by that definition, nothing in this world is free. Every freedom is limited. You have free speech, but you're not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theather. Yet, we don't call the freedom of speech "non-free" simply because it's a limited freedom. (Hey, will you look at that, we're using analogies again!) The BSD license also limits your freedom (by 3 or 4 clauses, even), and even if you release under public domain, there can still be some implied limitations depending on jurisdiction. Even disregarding the license, there are STILL limitations in the law limiting what you're allowed to do with any software. You're not free to take the source code, print it, and bludgeon someone to death with the stack of papers, for example.

You're free to use GPL software however you want, as long as you're not taking away other people's freedoms to do the same. It's a limited freedom, just like every other freedom ever. How does it not fit the commonly accepted meaning of "free"?

I've already explained. If you don't understand, then by all means, please take the time to reread.

I'm never going to change my mind. arguing with me on this is a lot like arguing with a brick wall.... it's pointless.