On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 06:48:27AM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:
That’s not requred by the GPL, the requirement is that if you
or in this case breach a contract.
Ethically (as opposed to legally) speaking, I have a very difficult time
understanding how anyone can consider what amounts to an ex post facto
“contract” to be a good faith agreement. Any EULA or equivalent
“contract” is in fact based on an assumption of agreement, imposed after
it’s too late rather than clearly agreed in advance as any enforceable
contract should be – at least, the way EULAs and the like are currently
handled.
To see the GPL ethically enforceable as a contract, one would not be
able to download the software and GPL text as a single download, then
read or ignore the GPL. Rather, the user would need to download the
license or otherwise read it and agree to it before having access to
the download. Otherwise, the user already has the licensed content in
his or her possession before the so-called “contract” is ever brought
into play. That’s a bit like telling someone that eating any of the
burrito he has already half-finished means he’s bound by law to perform
some kind of service for you.
If the GPL were properly presented as an agreement before access to the
software is granted, I wouldn’t have any problem with it as a contract.
As a general-purpose “license for all things open source”, however, I
have pretty distinct issues with it (as I’m sure you’re aware by now).
to community based software, like OpenWRT, for that and other similar
wireless routers.
You may have to point out in exacting detail how the GPL was a critical
factor in ensuring that a specific good result came about, and how that
result was in fact better than all likely alternative results if it
wasn’t GPLed software in the first place.
You seem to be ignoring my point which is that the GPL does not
require source code to be packages with a live CD or any other
packaging, only that such a distribution tell the recipient where the
source code can be obtained.
I’m not ignoring it. In fact, I’ve very specifically pointed out the
trade offs between failing to distribute at all, forced immediate
distribution of source code, and continuous maintenance of source code
archives in case someone wants the source code at some point in the next
three years.
bactine = distribute source?
saw off your arm = ???
No. Close, though.
cut = software licensed GPL
infection = have to distribute source to distribute binaries
bactine = don’t distribute binaries, or only distribute if the
recipient will take the source at the same time
saw off your arm = spend hundreds or thousands of dollars maintaining
source archives with redundant backups over a period of no less than
three years after last distribution of a binary
I wasn’t actually objecting to anything, I was trying to answer your
question about LiveCDs by pointing out that the GPL doesn’t require
bundling source code, which seemed to be your implication.
My point was that the GPL requires either of:
- bundling source code
- maintaining source archives for long periods
. . . in most cases.
In light of the history of this discussion, that’s pure sophistry.
Thank you for divesting my statement of any context, then reversing my
meaning. Congratulations.
I THOUGHT that your statement starting with “There’s a difference
between downloading software…” was restating your opinion that the
GPL required distribution of source whenever binaries were
distributed, and that this was the conflation. Re-reading it I now
realize that I don’t even understand what that statement means.
The conflation to which I referred was yours, not the GPL’s.
In practice, the source of BSD-licensed software is as easily available
available to distribute software. Those mechanisms often are not free
(as in beer).
And the GPL is not about making software free as in beer, it’s about
making software free as in freedom.
. . . and my objection is that it grants greater “freedom” to software
than to people in possession of software, all else being equal. I never
objected to a failure to make software “free as in beer” to acquire.
You are free to use GPL software as you wish. If you create a
derivative work, you must not distribute that derivative work without
also making all of the GPL source code needed to compile that
derivative work available.
The argument against following the GPL license terms seems to me to be
something like arguing that one should be able to live in a
jurisdiction and be selective in which of the laws of that community
one obeys. It might be more convenient NOT to pay taxes, but…
My argument is not that I’d rather not follow all the laws in a given
jurisdiction just because I’m contrary, but that some of those laws are
unethical and/or lead to (hopefully unintended) negative consequences.
Now I’ve gotten your point that YOU prefer the BSD license. That’s
your right. My only goal has been to clear up some misconceptions
about what the GPL requires, and has always required, and what it
doesn’t require.
My goal has been to clear up your misconceptions that I don’t know what
I’m talking about, to demonstrate that I do in fact know something
about what the GPL does and does not require, to eliminate some of the
spin on the GPL that obscures some of its shortcomings, and to ensure
that it’s clear I don’t prefer the BSD just because I’m some kind of
froot loop with a chip on his shoulder, but rather because of very real,
very pertinent effects that forced source distribution as a condition of
binary distribution (whether immediate or delayed) impose as costs on
those of us who would rather just be able to do whatever we want with
software in our possession as long as we respect others’ rights to do
the same, barring explicit contractual agreements.
No, the GPL doesn’t qualify as an explicit contractual agreement,
because the agreement part of that is only implicit.
