%% Mike McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> What the GPL is all about is maximizing the amount of available free >> software (where "free" is defined by the traditional freedoms to >> examine, modify, and redistribute, as discussed on the FSF's web site). >> That goal means that some individual freedoms are not available, but >> this isn't uncommon: there is often a trade-off between individual >> freedoms, and freedom of the group in general.
mm> We certainly agree there, except I would omit the phrase "traditional mm> freedoms" and substitute "privilege" and add "restricted privilege" mm> before "redistribute". I do not agree at all with those changes. I suspect the fact that we disagree on this wording is an excellent indicator of our respective positions. >> The people who choose the GPL are doing so for a very specific reason: >> They are not totally altruistic. They want something in return for mm> I'm leery of imputing motives to people I don't know. And I'm leery of imputing stupidity and/or laziness to people _I_ don't know. mm> Oh, and I've got to assign the rights to the Free Software mm> Foundation. That's a primary point in the GPL. Because otherwise mm> the FSF and you and whoever cannot get standing. You might mm> investigate that part of it. >> That's totally, absolutely untrue. Not even close to being true. mm> No, no, it is. It is not. Please quote one sentence of the GPL, or even the rationale, that supports your position. If it is indeed a "primary point in the GPL", it should not be difficult to find. >> IF you modify a program where the FSF is the copyright holder (and >> there is far more software under the GPL where the FSF is not the >> copyright holder than otherwise--the Linux kernel for example), and >> you want to contribute your changes back to the FSF, then yes, the >> FSF will ask you to assign your copyrights before they accept the >> changes. This is so there is one unambiguous copyright holder for >> the entire software package. mm> And that's what I meant. The only person who can know what you meant is you. What you actually WROTE, however, was quite inaccurate, to the point where I can only consider it FUD. Unintentional perhaps, but FUD nonetheless. >> You are looking at this incorrectly. The FSF isn't against anyone >> making money. There are many ways to make money on software that >> does NOT involve using a proprietary license. mm> Umm, do you presume to speak for the FSF? In private e-mail back in mm> 1986 or so I discussed Richard Stallman's goals with him, and his mm> goal, AIUI, is that people should *not* make money off of writing mm> software. I can say with certainty that your understanding of FSF's goals is incorrect. I can't say what RMS's goals may or may not have been back in 1986, but I'm personally quite confident that he never intended to keep everyone from make money writing software. I don't speak for the FSF, obviously. However, I have read the many statements of their goals posted on the fsf.org website and their position on this subject is quite clear. Perhaps you could point to a statement which supports your claim? mm> If I understand him properly, he disbelieves in any form of mm> intellectual property. But, since he lives in a world which is not mm> to his liking, he uses the intellectual property laws to try to mm> reshape it as closely as he can to a world where people cannot mm> make money merely by writing and selling software. No. Again, you assume that selling software under proprietary license is the only way to make money writing software. This is a false assumption. >> The GPL can actually _HELP_ you make money. Why do you think the >> MySQL folks, the Qt folks, etc., release their stuff under the GPL? mm> Huh. You like to speak for others, I guess. I don't have any idea mm> why they do that. Have you had conversations with them? How would mm> you know? Because I've read their mailing lists and their web sites, where they explain it. They release the fully-featured version of their code under the GPL. This allows any other software that is released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license to use it. They also say, if you want to develop a proprietary program using our software, come to us and we'll sell you a license to use it in ways that the GPL does not allow. If they released their code as public domain, or using a license such as BSD or even the LGPL, they obviously would not be able to do that: those companies could use their code in their proprietary products and would not need to pay for it at all. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Find some GNU make tips at: http://www.gnu.org http://make.paulandlesley.org "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]