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

[Bill Page]

On November 20, 2006 1:52 PM C Y wrote:
> 
> --- Bill Page wrote:
> 
> > So in this light, how should we view the current situation with
> > Aldor? Last March I proposed that we (or I) simply go ahead and
> > license Aldor source as GPL (or under the Aldor Public License).
> 
> I'm a bit confused.  The Aldor distribution currently available is
> already under the Aldor Public License.

Correct.

> My original understanding was that there are certain core bits of
> Aldor (the compiler?) that are binary only in the current publicly
> available distribution.

Yes.

> 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.

But as Tim said in his earlier message: we are not lawyers so
arguing about wording is rather pointless.

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.

> Did I misunderstand the situation?

No more than anyone else. ;-)

> ... 
> 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.

> 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.

> ...
> The proper thing to do in such a case is contact the authors/copyright
> holders and discuss the issues.

We have been doing that for some time now.

> 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.

> 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.

Regards,
Bill Page.