[OT} How to un-GPL parts of a GPL'd module.

[sismex01 at hebmex.com]

> From: Chris Watson [mailto:opsys at voodooland.net]
> 
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 11:20  AM, sismex01 at hebmex.com wrote:
> 
> >
> > Well, there *is* the problem of corporations trying to take
> > technology which isn't theirs and gaining zillions off it,
> > and then burying said technology so other's won't benefit
> > from it.  It's happened with plenty of BSD technology which
> > ended up in NT, and then became patented by M$ (IIRC).
> 
> Wrong. I don't know how this myth got started but linux people just 
> love to cite this. There is *very little* BSD code in any windows 
> products.

Of course there's very little BSD code, *actual* BSD code, inside
M$ products, it'd be as tough to use as any unix, and more stable
to boot.  On the other hand, there's lots of derived technology
inside.

> What the real story is... Microshaft bought out a small company 
> (typical MS action) that had network tools based on standard BSD 
> utilities. MS simply inherited them as part of the buyout.

Yup, typical, like you said.

> I get tired of hearing how someone 
> stole BSD code. BSD code is *free*. If you don't want people to USE 
> your code then just don't give it out. Period.

SURE!!!

But I don't give a damn about BSD code, although I do acknowledge
that much of what's possible now is thanks to that code being
available in the first place.  The developers of BSD put that
license to their code because they wanted to publish it and "leave
me alone about it, I don't want your trouble."  And so, I'm forever
in their debt, because many of the tools I use were created
originally by them.

Python also has a kinda "Don't bother us" license, and it's perfectly
valid; it's possible to *sell* something that uses python internally
without needing their explicit permission, because it's already
permitted.  All my python stuff is under their license, because
it's usually small, simple, neat, and I don't want to hear any
trouble about it.

> But don't pull a GPL strong arm tactic by trying to force people
> into your socialist view of life. The GPL is just as evil and bad
> as MS except on the other end of the spectrum.

Why the hell not?

If you're using MY ideas, MY development, MY work, MY time,
why the hell should I let YOU use it **FOR FREE** (please do
note that last part) if YOU are not willing to release your
code for others (or myself) to benefit from it?

How does that make me a socialist or a communist? Most probably
I'd be willing to sell a separate-licensed version for a bunch
of cash, why not? (BTW, "socialist" and "communist" don't really
mix all that well, get your politics straight).

How does that make me evil?

How does that make me unfair?

How does that give you a moral higher ground to attack my
licensing preferences? Or how does that give me a lower moral
ground to defend my work and preferences? Must I give away
for free my ideas, work, time, to any opportunist who comes
around, and not expect anything back?

Is *that* what's right?

> 
> > Then you see plenty of other technologies which *were* public
> > domain, or at least didn't have any heavy licensing (or rather,
> > *formal* licensing) behind them, and then they were copied
> > by some opportunist and subsequently patented, resulting in
> > the net loss of said tech.  Take a look at the IRC robot
> > fiasco going on.
> 
> That is a totally different issue. And has nothing to do with either 
> licensing scheme. Your beef here is with the completely 
> stupid/retarded/jack ass US patent system. The whole damn patent
> office should be abolished. It is a blatant train wreck. Pure and
> simple.  Write your congressman/woman.

Of course not; patents are a way for an inventor to obtain
retribution for his ideas, time and work; on the other hand,
it's badly implemented, the whole patent law system; you do
have problems with it, but it should not be abolished, it
should be corrected.

(BTW, I've no beef here, I don't use irc; it's merely an example)

> 
> > So there actually *is* a need for the GPL, to help keep things
> > fair; it's no fun to be inventing stuff and then setting it free,
> > if there's others with no notion of playing fairly taking all,
> > making zillions, and shutting others out.  There's countless
> > evidence of it going on every day, you just need take a look
> > and read around.
> 
> To destroy IP, kill capitalism, and put programmers out or work isn't 
> quite what id call fair.
> Write GPL app
> ???
> PROFIT!!!
> Realize no one is buying what you are giving out for free.
> File chapter 11.

This is your perception of the process, but you're seeing it in
the same colorblind way that M$ and other software pushers
(not "publishers", "pushers") want you to see it.

On the other hand, nowhere in the GPL does it say that software
must be free (as in "gratix"), but that you have to give your
customer access to the source code.  Charge them a mill for the
package, sure; but you have to give them the source code *if they
ask for it*. Simple.

But I don't know why you're getting all incensed about it; you want
to release your code under a BSDish license, and the GPL is another
free software license; so I don't understand your anger against it.
So you can't use a certain piece of software because it's GPL,
you have the choice of using GPL, or of writing an analogous
software.

But then again, that's YOUR choice, you can use the GPL or not
use it; it's a perfectly valid choice, and it's only yours to
make.

But, if others have published their software using the GPL, they've
chosen to make a certain political statement with their product,
and I believe you should respect it just the same as they would
respect your political statement about releasing your code
under the BSD licence ("use it if you wanna, but don't bother me").

> 
> Again the whole GNU/FSF/GPL gang is as evil as MS, it's just 
> the other side of the coin.
> 

Naa, I think you're being a bit extreme about it.

After all, it's a bit different when one gang says "Take this
software; you can't do anything with it that we haven't listed
here; don't ask us if it's any good; maybe you'll die because
of it but it's not our fault; ahh, it costs $600 bucks"
from "Here's this software; use it if you want to; if you
use it, you have to let your users read your code; it's not
our fault if you die from it; ah, it doesn't cost you a cent."

>
> *waits for the ensuing gang of GPL thugs to attack*
> 

Naa man, just chill.

> Chris
> --
> "I feel..thin. Sort of stretched, like... butter scraped over 
> too much bread. I need a holiday a very long holiday."
> 

That's why bread is bad for you.

-gustavo