I would be happy to see an endless discussion coming to its end
This has become quite OT in fact, and all the possible and impossible
arguments have been shared already
This is just one step away from discussing communism, iraqwar and
darwin… 
Happy eastern
Matthias Oesterle
“The way I see it:
BSD/MIT license is for people who want to improve the software world
by letting everyone use the code.
GPL is for the “communists” ;-)”
This could in fact be turned around the other way…BSD and MIT allows
for
Commie freeloading without any expectation of value exchange, whereas
the
GPL expects a quid pro quo capitalist exchange of value to happen when
distribution of the software in question occurs. I’m not saying that
one
way of looking at it is any more accurate, but merely that the analogy
between software licensing shemes and economit-political models isn’t
all
that clear or easy to make…
Joe
On 4/9/06, Ray B. [email protected] wrote:
s/Free Software/GNU GPLed software/
Let’s ignore the propaganda in at least one place, shall we? The GNU
GPL is a highly restrictive licence. This is a feature, not a flaw,
and trying to disguise the restrictiveness is dishonest.At best.
Not clear what your point is here. You are agreeing that it is feature,
so why the contention? Or did you make a typo?
No, not a typo. The fact is that the GNU GPL is a highly restrictive
licence. There is a purpose to the restrictions, and it is a
feature of the licence. The same applies to the higly viral nature
of the GNU GPL. It’s intentional and it’s a feature.
The problem comes in when people try to claim that the GNU GPL makes
“free” software; it doesn’t. It enforces what the Creative Commons has
best described as “Share Alike”. If that’s what you want for your
software, more power to you. If you want to offer the software and not
allow anyone – including yourself – a competitive advantage, such a
licence may even be a preferred choice.
But the claims regarding “freedom” and against the viral nature of the
GNU GPL are contrafactual and propaganda at best. At worst, they are
known to be lies and repeated maliciously in a willful attempt to
deceive.
If what you need is the GNU GPL, use it. Just understand what you’re
using and don’t choose it blindly.
-austin
On 4/9/06, Henrik Ormåsen [email protected] wrote:
source (maybe in a way that even out-compete the original free
project) are not exactly the same, but an related thing.
This argument is often trotted out. It always fails to impress anyone
who thinks a little harder about it. Software isn’t – yet – sentient.
At least under the current regime, it is recognised as property
worldwide. (Note that even in the ages of slavery, such recognition was
not universal. Without justifying slavery, I will also note that
historically, the situation regarding slavery was significantly more
complex until slavery became the basis of the New World economy and the
scourge of Africa. It’s never so simple as people like to make it seem.)
I will have restrictions against other stealing my free work (mainly
done in the spare time) for making restricted software.
And that’s your choice.
But.
If someone takes PDF::Writer and enhances it in a way that allows them
to make lots of money and not offer me anything back (source or
anything), I’m okay with that.
Maybe you’re not. But I am.
I am making the moral choice not to limit others choices when I choose
the MIT licence or similar licences. You are making the moral choice to
limit others choices when you choose the GNU GPL or similar licences.
Let me be a bit more explicit since people are throwing around loaded
terms like “steal”: if someone takes PDF::Writer and makes a closed-
source derivative of it, they are not stealing it. They are using it as
I have licensed it.
It’s that simple. And I don’t have a problem with it.
I have no problem with a Share-Alike licence, which is essentially
what the GNU GPL is. I do have a problem with people trying to
describe it as something other than it is, which is exactly what the
supporters of the GNU GPL end up doing most of the time. They have
learned it straight from the source, though. Stallman is often at
the centre of the worst misunderstandings of the GNU GPL.
Are there other restrictions on the GPL, than those for restricting
people to take others free code and put it in restricted software?
There are, actually, and those restrictions are only set to increase
with the GNU GPL v3.
-austin
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 00:07 -0400, Austin Z. wrote:
Free Software available to the world at large.
licence may even be a preferred choice.
But the claims regarding “freedom” and against the viral nature of the
GNU GPL are contrafactual and propaganda at best. At worst, they are
known to be lies and repeated maliciously in a willful attempt to
deceive.If what you need is the GNU GPL, use it. Just understand what you’re
using and don’t choose it blindly.
The above of course is your opinion and I would agree that some
knowledgeable people would agree with you and I think you would agree
that many knowledgeable people do not agree with you.
I find your characterizations prejudicial and your conclusions faulty.
The ‘highly restrictive license’ you talk about pertain only to those
who wish to distribute/sell the software in question.
In the end, this discussion goes nowhere.
Craig
On 4/9/06, Matthew P. [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 11:18:07AM -0400, Austin Z. wrote:
Obviously, you didn’t actually read what I wrote.
Based on what, exactly?
Based on the fact that what you posted had nothing to do with what I had
written. It’s a common occurrence when people are defending against
something that I didn’t say.
Based on other posts, you’re a bit of a GNU GPL zealot. That’s fine,
but GNU GPLed software isn’t “free”. It’s heavily restricted
distribution.
If you’re basing your entire argument on how you define “free”, then
you can stop now. We’re never going to agree.
Fine. I’d prefer it if you and other GNU GPL advocates didn’t play
Humpty Dumpty and redefine words to mean the opposite of what they
really mean, though.
I have no problem with a Share-Alike licence, which is essentially
what the GNU GPL is. I do have a problem with people trying to
describe it as something other than it is, which is exactly what the
supporters of the GNU GPL end up doing most of the time. They have
learned it straight from the source, though. Stallman is often at
the centre of the worst misunderstandings of the GNU GPL.
Are you sure your name isn’t Alexander Terekhov?
Who is that? Whatever. You’ve indicated that you’ve got no interest in
discussing things like a rational human being. I’ll oblige you.
-austin
Craig W. wrote:
In the end, this discussion goes nowhere.
Craig
Even if all this has gone a little wild near the end and as I started
this thread,
I would like to thank you all for sharing your ideas and opening my mind
on the complexities of the different licenses. It was a very obscure
domain for me
but you all brought some light to it and I feel I can make some choices
now.
Thanks,
Gaspard B.
On 4/10/06, Henrik Ormåsen [email protected] wrote:
sentient.
I’m sorry. Maybe it’s just my bad English knowledge, but I just don’t
understand what you are meaning here. I look up “sentient”: ““The
Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48” Sentient
Sen"ti*ent, a. L. sentiens, -entis, p. pr. of
sentire to discern or perceive by the senses. See Sense. Having a
faculty, or faculties, of sensation and perception. Specif.
(Physiol.), especially sensitive; as, the sentient extremities of
nerves, which terminate in the various organs or tissues. 1913
Webster”
But I still just don’t get it I think. Do you mean that you can’t get
knowledge of software through senses? In case, I don’t see your point.
If some one takes things I have from before for free (as an free
software project) I will feel I lose some thing. The same would be
(just more extremely) if some one took more of my freedom, and put me
to slavery.
Software is not alive. It is neither sentient nor sapient. It cannot
be free or enslaved. Any argument of closed-source-as-slavery must
account for this. That’s ultimately where the argument falls down and
must be abandoned. The GNU GPL is about free redistribution of software
without restricting downstream users from further redistribution. It is
not about slavery. It is not about a bunch of things that people who
support the GNU GPL model want to claim it is about.
It’s simply about offering restrictions to ensure that recipients of the
software can distribute, modify, and use the software.
That’s it. It doesn’t “free” software. It restricts, and that’s a
feature.
property just like software, so I don’t see your point here either.
Once again, without justifying slavery at all in history, the reality of
slavery is significantly more complex than simply “slaves were also
property.” At least before the 18th century, owning a slave was seen as
entering into a complex relationship. The owner definitely had the upper
hand in the relationship, but also had certain defined and expected
behaviours toward the slave. Prior to the discovery of the New World and
the rape of Africa, slavery was not based on “race” in any way, and was
(as I said) a very complex relationship.
I’m not at all saying that a slave’s lot was good or justifiable; just
that the situation is far more complex than most people’s simplistic
reading.
I am making the moral choice not to limit others choices when I
choose the MIT licence or similar licences. You are making the moral
choice to limit others choices when you choose the GNU GPL or similar
licences.
Thats right. I want to have restrictions against putting restrictions
on my software.
And neither moral choice here is superior to the other. That’s why I
have problems with claims that ultimately suggest that closed-source-is-
slavery.
Let me be a bit more explicit since people are throwing around loaded
terms like “steal”: if someone takes PDF::Writer and makes a closed-
source derivative of it, they are not stealing it. They are using it
as I have licensed it.
Your right here. It’s not stealing. I used the word more to describe
my (and others) feelings that might occur in some cases.
But those feelings are clearly wrong if that’s how the software was
licensed. This, Henrik, is ultimately why I have major issues with GNU
GPL advocates. They make emotional appeals that are factually incorrect.
Most don’t admit it, either.
-austin
Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Austin Z. skrev:
others free code, make some modifications, and then sell it as closed
source (maybe in a way that even out-compete the original free
project) are not exactly the same, but an related thing.This argument is often trotted out. It always fails to impress anyone
who thinks a little harder about it. Software isn’t – yet – sentient.
I’m sorry. Maybe it’s just my bad English knowledge, but I just don’t
understand what you are meaning here. I look up “sentient”:
““The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48”
Sentient Sen"ti*ent, a. L. sentiens, -entis, p. pr. of
sentire to discern or perceive by the senses. See Sense.
Having a faculty, or faculties, of sensation and perception.
Specif. (Physiol.), especially sensitive; as, the sentient
extremities of nerves, which terminate in the various organs
or tissues.
1913 Webster”
But I still just don’t get it I think. Do you mean that you can’t get
knowledge of software through senses? In case, I don’t see your
point. If some one takes things I have from before for free (as an
free software project) I will feel I lose some thing. The same would
be (just more extremely) if some one took more of my freedom, and put
me to slavery.
At least under the current regime, it is recognised as property
worldwide. (Note that even in the ages of slavery, such recognition was
not universal. Without justifying slavery, I will also note that
historically, the situation regarding slavery was significantly more
complex until slavery became the basis of the New World economy and the
scourge of Africa. It’s never so simple as people like to make it seem.)
I know that slavery and slavery isn’t necessarily exactly the same
thing. Still very, very few liked to be taken as slaves (besides what
they wanted wasn’t of the issue off course). Slaves was also
property just like software, so I don’t see your point here either.
I am making the moral choice not to limit others choices when I choose
the MIT licence or similar licences. You are making the moral choice to
limit others choices when you choose the GNU GPL or similar licences.
Thats right. I want to have restrictions against putting restrictions
on my software.
Let me be a bit more explicit since people are throwing around loaded
terms like “steal”: if someone takes PDF::Writer and makes a closed-
source derivative of it, they are not stealing it. They are using it as
I have licensed it.
Your right here. It’s not stealing. I used the word more to describe
my (and others) feelings that might occur in some cases.
On 4/10/06, Henrik Ormåsen [email protected] wrote:
My time (as ever bodies) is limited. If I’m starting to contribute to
a project, which I can have use for when it’s finished, and suddenly
the main developers makes it closed sourced (including my code), so I
no more can contribute, ore use the software for free, as I had planed
and contributed to. Then I will get the same feeling as if someone
stole my bicycle (probably I will feel this much worse, than if
anybody stole my old bike).Is that very wrong of me? I really don’t think so.
I think you are missing something, you don’t lose anything, the
original code is still availlable, including your contribution. Nobody
will ever take that away.
Wijnand
–
OpenBSD needs your help improving the softwareworld, please donate:
http://openbsd.org/donations.html
Yes big code using companies, that includes you!
Life is considerably more complex in the area of GPL’d code for web
applications. Because web applications tend to deliver, at least,
HTML and typically some javascript to clients, it is unclear whether
that act alone constitutes a “distribution,” which triggers the “all
or any part” viral provisions of GPL 2.0. You will never know the
answer to this question with any certainty until a judge or jury
tells you so, and hence, Evil, Ltd. is taking a massive risk by using
the code, as you are taking a massive risk by relying on GPL to
ensnare the EvilCo code.
This is not really a question of fundamental misunderstandings, but
rather the natural consequence of GPL not working rationally for
certain kinds of technologies that do not fall squarely in the Unix
application models. Web applications are but one such technology.
(Another tremendously complex one is the application of GPL to a
Smalltalk “image,” (or in an earlier era, a BASIC workspace for some
systems) and whether the distribution of an image containing some
GPL’d code necessarily ensnares all software having objects on that
“image.”
Despite the technical community’s assurances to lawyers that GPL
doesn’t unreasonably ensnare code that reasonably may be considered
“stand-alone,” the truth, legally speaking, may be far more
interesting. In particular, the difference between static and
dynamic linking in any particular case, or the fact of a distribution
when there is, in fact, transmission, raise questions of fact that
are ineffable for a jury (yielding a jury verdict that can be, at
best, coincidentally just) , and once decided, probably unreviewable
by an appellate court.
We get it, but the courts will not. Thus, risks are always present
for prospective defendants.
Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Austin Z. skrev:
Software is not alive. It is neither sentient nor sapient. It cannot
be free or enslaved. Any argument of closed-source-as-slavery must
account for this. That’s ultimately where the argument falls down and
must be abandoned. The GNU GPL is about free redistribution of software
without restricting downstream users from further redistribution. It is
not about slavery. It is not about a bunch of things that people who
support the GNU GPL model want to claim it is about.
Now I understand what you what you are meaning. Think you also have
misunderstood me. I’m not talking about freeing the software (as it
was something living…). I’m talking about freedom for the users and
developers. Open source software gives freedom to people! Thats the
point! I get freedom to hack on the software, redistribute it
etc. etc. Thats the freedom I want to have restrictions against taking
away. And thats way I think you are totally wrong when you are
describing this restrictions as contrary to freedom. I’m not specially
found of the Nihilistic freedom of taking freedom as BSD and such
licenses give.
When I spend time learning, configuring, hacking etc. software. I like
to know that the freedom of hacking, redistributing etc. the software
is granted also in the future. You mean that this kind of promising
that the software will stay free in the future is opposite to
freedom. And thats were I don’t agree.
Once again, without justifying slavery at all in history, the reality of
slavery is significantly more complex than simply “slaves were also
property.” At least before the 18th century, owning a slave was seen as
entering into a complex relationship. The owner definitely had the upper
hand in the relationship, but also had certain defined and expected
behaviours toward the slave. Prior to the discovery of the New World and
the rape of Africa, slavery was not based on “race” in any way, and was
(as I said) a very complex relationship.
And wary between f.x. some African societies, Norwegian “treller”,
roman slaves etc. etc. It’s not so simple that you can say that
slavery before 18th century was one thing. The Norwegian vikings stole
even children from distant regions, fare away which become
slaves. They even sold slaves to Arab and Jewish traders. Different
societies had different roles about when and how slaves could be
free. But I think we can stop the historic discussing here. It’s a
little bit off topic. I think you have understood my point about
taking away freedom.
I am making the moral choice not to limit others choices when I
choose the MIT licence or similar licences. You are making the moral
choice to limit others choices when you choose the GNU GPL or similar
licences.
Thats right. I want to have restrictions against putting restrictions
on my software.
And neither moral choice here is superior to the other. That’s why I
have problems with claims that ultimately suggest that closed-source-is-
slavery.
I haven’t said that. I explicitly said it’s not the same. My point was
(and is) that freedom for taking others freedom isn’t just
freedom. And restrictions against this isn’t just un-freedom, as I
understand you are meaning.
GPL advocates. They make emotional appeals that are factually incorrect.
I don’t agree.
My time (as ever bodies) is limited. If I’m starting to contribute to
a project, which I can have use for when it’s finished, and suddenly
the main developers makes it closed sourced (including my code), so I
no more can contribute, ore use the software for free, as I had planed
and contributed to. Then I will get the same feeling as if someone
stole my bicycle (probably I will feel this much worse, than if
anybody stole my old bike).
Is that very wrong of me? I really don’t think so.
But off course. If you (and a friend) makes an app. with BSD license,
and nobody else contributes its a totally different thing. Nobody will
feel you steal from them, if you decide to make it closed source.
BSD license is not about stealing. It just don’t makes promises
against situations where people might get this feeling, as described
in my example.
Okay. Enough discussion for my part. I think this has been an good and
interesting discussion. Personally I have got more understanding for
why someone prefer BSD type licenses. I hope someone also understand
my points for GNU GPL in many cases.
I always love seeing this response. With all due respect, it seems
to me arrogant and naive in comparison to the more subtle truths of
the matter. (I do not suggest that my brother Matthew is arrogant
and naive, merely that the response is). The use of the passive
voice in the response is telling – who, exactly, is doing the “seeing”?
In fact, GPL is not the “free-est” of “Free Software” licenses, and
the widely expansive viral features of the GPL (compared to more
modestly viral and non-viral licenses) have resulted, over time in
the GPL’s loss of hedgemony among open source and Free Software
projects. “Free Software” is a term of art for the ideologically
inclined, but it doesn’t really address the realities of the world of
software development. The fact of the matter that growing the pool
of Free Software will depend upon the willingness of software
developers to submit to the requirements of the “freedom,” or that
freedom can be obtained only by maximalist viral capture of derived
code. Even FSF does not hold the latter to be true. If people
refuse to submit to these notions, the pool will not grow, except at
most by accident or in some cases malice.
We are already seeing people flocking to non-GPL “open source” (NOT
TM) licenses, including non-free licenses. The “feature” has led
people to leave GPL in the dust. LGPL retains its popularity, and
other licenses are being used with greater frequency for non-integral
software packages.
Make no mistake about it, FSF led the way to this movement, as did
its less FSF-free siblings. All have costs and benefits for the
community as a whole, and frankly, impassive analysis has been long
abandoned for lock-step following on both sides of the issue. For my
part, I revere the work of RMS, but now have come to think that
expansive GPL maximalism has put the free software movement as much
at risk as it has led the way in recent years.
Mind you, I am an active contributor to various open source and free
software products. I believe in the “open source” movement and with
less rigid lockstep, to its “free software” ancestor. I am grateful
to everyone who has contributed software to the work I have done and
am doing.
But as a practicing IP lawyer, who has been asked to opine often upon
the impact of adopting a GPL package, or the seriousness of used GPL
software impeding exit strategies in merger and acquisition
transactions, I can tell you that the real frictions are enormous –
even where the players are all wearing white hats.
It is important to recognize that these frictions are all too
common. They are also irrelevant to the issues. It is true that
when we are speaking ideologically, emotions run high and objective
analysis is often a casualty.
Fact of the matter is that “free software” has a common meaning which
is not coextensive with the FSF definition of “Free Software.” Thus,
when someone argues that GPL’d software is “more free” or “not more
free,” the argument is ambiguous because “free software” and “Free
Software” are homophones.
Without possible contradiction, Mr. Ziegler is correct in observing
that the GPL is more restrictive than its other “FSF-Free” and “non
FSF-Free” counterparts. And for most purposes in the real world, the
viral provisions are profoundly problematic in the ongoing use of the
software, even in cases where the user would be pleased to share his
code with the users. Promiscuous use in commercial and non-
proprietary contexts of GPL’d software can radically delay mergers
and acquisitions, and increase the costs of entrepreneur exit
strategies. The actual administrative cost and risks of responsibly
using GPL’d software in an enterprise is massive compared to the use
of alternative “FSF-Free” and “non FSF-Free” licenses. And the
hopelessly awkward necessity of using phrases like “FSF-Free” and
“non FSF-Free” to precisely distinguish the FSF meaning from the more
ordinary denotation explains Mr. Ziegler’s references to Orwell.
Moreover, without possible contradiction, Mr. Palmer correctly
observes that downstream users may take “FSF-Free” and “non FSF-Free”
software “private” (more perspicaciously, proprietary) far more
readily with less restrictive licenses than the GPL. If you are
troubled by that possibility, you need to do the balancing act Mr.
Palmer suggests. (Note that examples of less viral, but still
somewhat viral, licenses are replete in the commercial world, such as
Mozilla, CPL and APSL).
There are some who believe that RMS and GPL are the pips, and will
follow in cases with or without critical concern for the merits. And
there are many people who reasonable may consider less constraining
licenses to be more virtuous precisely because they are more
generically “free,” with or without concern for the merits. De
gustibus non disputandum est.
I share Mr. Ziegler’s distaste for the appropriation of connotative
terminology, which tends to support demagoguery in favor of GPL more
than it does not, but I have gotten so used to it, I am no longer
moved. Just deal with it Austin – its really quite OK. If it is
any consolation, the uncritical lockstep followers find the
appropriation of free, or the use of “FSF-Free” equally offensive.
In short, argue with those willing to engage in critical discussion,
and just blow off the lockstep ideologues on either side. I. for
one, am pleased to see reasonable and smart advocates for both views
represented here, even if both seem to have a “burr in their shorts.”
These are very important issues, unworthy of demagoguery.
Matthew’s argument isn’t unsound, although I have characterized it
elsewhere as possibly arrogant and naive. Let’s first follow the
logic, recognizing that Matthew carefully capitalized Free Software,
presumably distinguishing the FSF term of art from the more general
notion of “free software.” I shall use the phrase FSF-Free to be
more clear.
FSF-Free Software has particular meaning, relating to four freedoms
that users of the software will have. Exercise of one or more of
those freedoms provides liberty to adapt and distribute changes to
third parties. The definition of FSF-Free is not transitive, in the
sense that recipients of the modified code may not be receiving FSF-
Free Software. It is from concern for this that the copyleft viral
provision was invented. Thus, distributions of modified FSF-Free
Software would be (in many cases) FSF-Free Software.
As an aside, we must note that a more ideological definition would
have require FSF-Free to be transitive in this sense, and hence so
that only GPL or more restrictive licenses would be FSF-Free. This
is not the case for FSF.
In any case, modification of GPL’d code is free, and distribution of
many modifications of GPL’d code is free. Hence, if people are
willing to modify the GPL’d code and distribute it, the term will
have the effect Matthew indicates. The converse, that other free
code, including non-advertising restriction versions of the BPL,
would not grow the pool is of course false. The modifier of BPL is
free to release those modifications as FSF-Free Software, or not.
The question of which approach is more likely to lead to more
software is an interesting issue. Some reasonably believe that
coercive approaches tend to lead to less sharing, while less
restrictive approaches lead to more returning of the favor. Some
reasonably believe the opposite. Most people should recognize that
the only scientific way to measure the question is by experiment and
analysis – and there is far too little of that. I observe that the
economic consequences (due to administrative uncertainties and legal
remediation necessary to conclude certain transactions) of using
GPL’d code are now quite considerable, and that economic arguments
tend to suggest that more FSF-Free software, and certainly more open
source software, may derive from the less restrictive approaches in
this important sector.
This is the sort of casual use of terminology to which I referred
earlier. There is absolutely NOTHING that a recipient of FSF-Free
software can do that would add restrictions to the original code.
Nothing. The original code remains as FSF-Free before as it is after
the user modifies the code. The use of the word “freedom” in so
casual a fashion is the reason why the posting is more demagogical
than argumentative. It convinces only believers, and does little to
forward the argument.
GPL’d is not coextensive with free, and is not even coextensive with
FSF-Free. This is very important to keep in mind.
As to the conditions upon which downstream modifications are given to
the public, indeed, a user is entitled to add restrictions. And this
may be necessary to permit users to use that code in some contexts.
In particular, if a user combines the FSF-Free code with additional
code that would, if made used or sold, infringe a patent, then
downstream users of that code could never use it without risk of a
claim for infringement. That is, unless, the downstream user can
give a license to the combination. However, if that license contains
any restrictions, it is a GPL violation. And few patentees would
grant a blanket public license to the combination (which has NOTHING
to do with the FSF-Free software). GPL 3.0 has such provisions now,
and other patent-like provisions are familiar to Mozilla, CPL and APSL.
I think that the public HAVING the combination software in free,
albeit NON-GPL’d form is a damned good thing, and far better than not
having it. This is but one of the difficulties that has led the vast
majority of commercial entities from GPL to other FSF-Free and non
FSF-Free open-source licenses. There are many other examples.
On Apr 9, 2006, at 4:24 PM, Matthew P. wrote:
seem incapable of releasing their source when they’re required to
(GPL code
in binary-only products – consumer routers and Sony DRM, for
instance), I
don’t think that relying on corporations’ enlightened self-interest
for code
release is going to work very well.
Maybe not too overly optimistic, however. I think the many, many
examples of non-GPL’d FSF-free software and open sourced non FSF-free
software are pretty darned impressive. Amazingly good and viable
code remains in the light, despite the lack of uber-viral provisions.
Please note that I’m not saying that all source code needs to be
free, or
anything like that, just that if you do want source code to be
freely
available, hoping for it isn’t likely to work very well in the
general case,
at the present time.
All evidence to the contrary, as noted above. The following is
uncontrovertable:
GPL, without more, is insufficient to assure the FSF-freedom of
downstream modifications by corporations. This is evident from
Matthew’s examples, which are examples of GPL software not resulting
in downstream free software.
There exist examples of non-GPL code that has resulted in the FSF-
freedom of downstream modifications by corporations. This is evident
from perusal of licenses on the FSF web site that FSF acknowledges to
be free.
Hence, it follows that GPL is neither necessary or sufficient to
assure the freedom of downstream modified software by corporations.
The argument gets even worse if we start relaxing the notion of FSF-
freedom and start to lean more toward open source initiative
definitions.
Other, more interesting forces, more subtle than may be indicated by
the arguments here, may be at work.
Let’s be frank and acknowledge this. At the very least, if we rely
solely on anecdotal examples in lieu of scientic measurement, let’s
be clear what we are doing.
I don’t see people ‘flocking to non-GPL “open-source” licenses’ any more
than usual - there have always been a multitude of licenses and GPL is
but one type.
Simply using the term ‘viral’ with specific reference to GPL is
pejorative, which I suppose is your right as you are entitled to an
opinion but it is only that - an opinion and it is the language that is
unfair. In the sense that you are suggesting that the GPL license is
viral…that doesn’t begin to approach viral strategies such as Sony’s
embedding a rootkit on people’s computers merely by inserting one of the
many CD’s that they have published, such as DCMCIA legislation being
pushed by lobbyists or the absurd patent practices in the United
States.
I would suggest that the American consumer is footing the bill for the
digital rights protections, the pharmaceutical companies protections,
etc. and there are many who feel that software patents should simply not
ever be allowed.
Anyway, I digress - but only to one more point…that samba is an
excellent example of GPL license. Microsoft can’t buy it…IBM can’t buy
it, etc. As someone who has seen projects go cold when the company
released the software under BSD/MIT type license was sold to another
company that moved all development to proprietary/in house software, I
readily see the value of GPL. For most purposes, a GPL license is mostly
void of opportunities for an IP lawyer to make a buck. That has its own
appeal.
Craig
ps…if you respond, please don’t refer to me as ‘your brother’ as I
would interpret that as condenscending.
On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 02:24 -0400, Andrew G.berg wrote:
license. The analogy to virus is quite apt, explains the situation
well to a layman. Understandably, the lack of any better term has
led to its wide adoption among attorneys working in the arena.
Perhaps you would care to suggest an alternative? While you are at
it, you might ease up in calling perfectly reasonable licenses “non-
free.” (or did you mean that in a denotative and non-pejorative sense?)
actually, I didn’t make any reference to MIT or BSD licenses as being
non-free so I am not sure what you are referring to at all.
GPL doesn’t stop this parade of horribles, either as a matter of law
or as a practical mattter.For most purposes, a GPL license is mostly
void of opportunities for an IP lawyer to make a buck. That has its
own
appeal.And what would a vapid argument be without a lawyer-bashing
conclusion?
Present evidenceps…if you respond, please don’t refer to me as ‘your brother’ as I
would interpret that as condenscending.Of course you would. The prior fraternal reference was not intended
as condescending. The first sentence of this paragraph most
certainly was. Between you and me, Craig (who is not my brother),
trying to dictate my choice of words --the sole basis of your
response-- is a hopeless and inadequate mode of argument. Personal
and ad hominem remarks add little more.
You are conveniently missing my perception of your comments. If your
intent was to refer to Matthew as ‘brother Matthew’ was not to be
condescending, then I missed it. In fact, I mentioned that I saw it as
condescending. I sought not to dictate your choice of words but rather
provide reference that I expected to you understand the boundaries of a
discussion.
I offered a clear opportunity to not make this personal and I note that
your closing commentary you apparently couldn’t help yourself. Rather
than apologize for leaving the impression that you were being
condescending, you took a swipe at me.
It’s not that we are in large disagreement of any of the discussion and
I probably would have let your massive amounts of posts pass without
commentary but you used pejorative terms, condescending language and a
general demeanor more suitable for your law practice then a mail list
for ruby on rails.
Craig
On 4/11/06, Craig W. [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 02:24 -0400, Andrew G.berg wrote:
On Apr 11, 2006, at 12:58 AM, Craig W. wrote:
Simply using the term ‘viral’ with specific reference to GPL is
pejorative, which I suppose is your right as you are entitled to an
opinion but it is only that - an opinion and it is the language
that is
unfair.
[…]
The point of the usage of the term viral as it relates to GPL license
you suggest is one of convenience and I am suggesting that it is
pejorative, considering the connotations of the word viral, especially
in the sense of computer technology. It’s simply being argumentative.
The problem is, that it’s not an incorrect term. Consider the term
“viral marketing.” It’s not pejorative. The GNU GPL practices “viral
licensing.” I do not mean that pejoratively; it is a feature of the
GNU GPL. I happen to not like it, but it is not an accidental side
effect, nor is it necessarily an inherent negative. If the advocates
of the GNU GPL do not like the term “viral” because they consider it
pejorative, they need to come up with a clear, non-propaganda,
descriptive term that captures what “viral” does.
The GNU GPL is viral in the same way that marketing can be viral.
Neither connotation here is negative. The denotation of viral is
similarly neutral.
What if we say that the GNU GPL is retroviral? 
-austin
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.
Sponsor our Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs