On Thursday 19 July 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about 'RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??': > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > If you don't like the GPLv3, you probably didn't > > *really* like the GPLv2 and might be more interested > > in licensing anything you contribute under something > > like MIT/X11/BSD. > > > > Those licenses allow others to take your code, cripple > > it, and sell it to you (perhaps even on a device) for > > $100. Oh, and offer you an "upgrade" to (_the same device_ > > running) your original code (which still has a few bugs, you > > might want a support contract) for $10000. > > I can't agree with your statements here. Unless you have > no understanding of copyright law, you should realize that > YOUR code cannot be crippled regardless of the license that > you put it under.
Not true. Say you release code into the public domain [1]. Now, evil corporation X takes that code, strips out some features, sign it and put it on a cell phone. They sell you the phone for $300 (free with 2 year contract) or a version with your original software on it (the exact same hardware) for $600 (no discount available). They pull a "TiVo" can ensure that you can't load modified software on it -- or you can but then the phone refuses to do anything put print "This phone needs service. Please take this phone to your local retailer for service." They don't even tell you it's your code -- someone in Turkey found that out and emailed you in broken English. ;) Your code is locked up and you can no longer upgrade it (or even use ALL of the features that YOU wrote) without paying $$$. Sure, you can still upgrade and release your code, but you can't run it on a device YOU PAID for that is ALREADY running YOUR code, UNMODIFIED. You also can't help other people using these phones that THEY paid for, even though your code runs unmodified. The GPL has always been engineered to prevent this behavior. The GPLv1 and GPLv2 both concentrated on the way to prevent this through copyright law. However, this has proven to be not enough. After bring cases to count (and settling because the case was so clear-cut) multiple times, it became fairly clear to all parties that GPLv2 was overly difficult, if not impossible, to be simply "attacking" with copyright law. So, entities that would rather not contribute, have attacked with technological and patent-law methods to restrict users' freedoms and the GPLv3 meets those attacks head on. I hope RMS and the FSF will act even more quickly (either with aggressive litigation or further license revisions) to future attacks on the freedoms that are meant to be preserved throughout the Free Software ecosystem. > The code that YOU write and release under an Open Source or > Free Software license will still be available under that > license even after someone else uses it in a project of their own. Yes. > If you use a license that allows for relicensing or closing > of the code and someone does so, then it only effects THEIR > Version of the code. Yours is still intact, and unharmed. With the BSD lincese and public domain, we get into case case where the freedom of the code depends on where you take the measurement (see above). RMS witnessed such things happening and preventing the free code from always free. Thus, he wrote the GPLv1 with the goal of making sure Free Software was free everywhere and to everyone. > The MIT/BSD/etc licenses have the advantage that a person > can if they so desire CHOOSE whether or not they wish to > make THEIR code and modifications available. This is a choice. They ALSO get to choose whether they give their users your code and can even prevent users from knowing what code they are running, especially if your are prolific. The GPL also covers (read: places restrictions on) derivative works, something that is your right as a copyright holder. BSD/MIT/X11 don't, and LGPL makes only minimal requirements on derivative works to ensure the original work remains free. > Many of us WILL release our own code even under those terms, > but it is a choice to do so. I am not saying that the idea > of GPL is wrong. Different developers have different desires > for their code. I am simply saying that the Open Source route > is just as valid as the Free Software route. But the GPL has *always* been about Free Software, not "just" Open Source. By accepting the terms of the GPLv2, TiVo should have been prepared to honor the Free Software definition and not attempt to restrict their users' freedoms. As a user I wish *every* piece of software I received was under the terms of the GPLv3. As a developer, I understand the allure of the BSD license -- it's great to be able to grab others' stuff with a few strings attached as possible. However, since I'll always end up using more code than I write, I prefer to release under the GPLv3. > As for selling it back to you. It is up to every person to > take measures to educate themselves on their purchases. I agree, but when given binaries under the GPLv2, you *should have* been able to use modified versions. That *was* and *is* one of the goals of the GPL. From the point of view of the authors of the GPL and those Free Software developers that took care in choosing their license, what TiVo did was *undesired* to say the least, and that's why we needed the GPLv3 to *fix* things. > As long as both hold up their part of the deal, things > go well. I contend that TiVo hasn't really held up there part of the deal, but if Eben thought the case could be won on the wording of the GPLv2, we probably wouldn't even have a GPLv3 right now. > Beyond that, always thinking in terms of worst case > scenerios may be good in war time, but otherwise it > will just give you ulcers. ^_^ So, like, pick your > favorite license, study what you buy before you buy, > and relax a bit. ^_^ I totally agree here. (Of course, I think the Free Software vs. Proprietary Software "war" is just heating up.) I'm ready to call end of thread if everyone else is. :) -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/ [1] BSD/X11/MIT licenses allow this behavior to, but it can be a *bit* more obvious in that case wince they do have to retain copyright notices.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
