The Industry choice

[Bulba!]

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 08:39:11 GMT, Roel Schroeven
<rschroev_nospam_ml at fastmail.fm> wrote:

>> If GPL folks had their way, it would not be possible not to "share" 
>> _anything_ you create.

>That's generally the goal of the Free Software Foundation: they think 
>all users should have the freedom to modify and/or distribute your code. 

You have the freedom of having to wash my car then. ;-)

>Most people who use the GPL don't feel that way; they think that each 
>author should have the freedom to choice if and how he chooses to share 
>code. 

Whatever they feel, GPL is designed in such a way that essentially
is an attempt to extend itself onto all the software in the world. 

>They just see the GPL as an appropriate way to share their code.

And why is that?

Suppose they want to ensure "no forking" or that "bugfixes
and enhancements of original software are given back". 

OK, LGPL is fine for this goal. When you say "they see it
as appropriate way to share their code", there's nothing
in this statement that openly and honestly indicates what
is the goal of this method.

>> It is widely acknowledged that GPL license has the "viral" aspect of
>> extending itself on your software - can you point to closed-source
>> licenses that would have this aspect?

>Can you point to closed-source licenses that allow using the code *at 
>all*? 

Which code?

_Their_ code? I.e. written by them?

Back then in days of yore I was using C-tree DB library for some
time, that came with source - or actually in practical terms "as
source". My boss wrote quite a lot of nice C++ wrappings thanks
to that (that I didn't bother to use, because I could not be
bothered to learn C++ :-). They still sell it that way:

http://www.faircom.com/products/ctree/

I don't remember being forbidden to redistribute source
code of what _we_ wrote at the company. Just the redistribution
of C-tree source code itself was not allowed. Redistribution of
the compiled binary with the product was OK (and no royalties
were required).

>With GPL, you have the choice: either you agree with its terms on 
>distributing the code and then you can use the code, or you don't agree 
>with it and you don't use (which is still no worse than closed source).

With all due respect, this is a universal statement that applies
to all the licenses - obviously, if you don't agree to the terms,
you can't use it. 

However, it's not aboot agreement to conditions per se, this is 
aboot the freedom of speech, err, this is aboot what those 
conditions actually are.  

>Some people call that viral, but I think it's a distortion of the truth.

How so? If you combine source of your program with GPLed source,
your source no longer can have the license of your choosing - it
has to have GPL license, or at least contain the key GPL conditions.
Other licenses do not require you to disclose _your_ source. It's
a really, really weird world in which having to put "obnoxious 
advertising clause" is considered as more of imposing yourself on
other people than requiring them to disclose your source. 

This is "money with strings attached" approach. It's just ignored
for sake of Grand Goal that few people actually believe into, along
the lines "end justifies means". 

OK, I rambled enough, this group should not degenerate into *.advocacy
trash dump. :-)



--
It's a man's life in a Python Programming Association.