Re: gpl backlash?
Date:Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:01:12 +0200 (CEST) From: Martin Konold [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 28 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. If an alternate implementation from mine exists 2. and is available for the user to run with your application on that platform 3. and the user actually has to have it to run your application. Postulate that you write an application that works with a library full of no-op stubs. That library just happens to match the interface of a GPL-ed product I've written, and with that library it is a functioning product. Then you ship that application with the _intent_ that the user combine it with my library to run it, which is demonstrated by the fact that it doesn't do useful work any other way or you haven't shipped an alternative library to that same user. I think I'd have a legitimate complaint. Bruce: Are you shure that "intent" has any legal meaning? In U.S. law, ``intent'' has a legal meaning in a number of contexts. For example, the difference between manslaughter and homicide is one of intent. I believe that in the copyright arena, intent goes by names such as ``contributory infringement.'' Ian
Re: gpl backlash?
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Wilfredo Sanchez wrote: snip Certainly the GPL has worked well here. Writing a compiler is enough of a pain in the ass that dealing with the GPL, regardless of your objections, is likely worthwhile. The GPL has had many areas of success. I wonder, out of sheer curiousity, whether there will emerge a *technical* or *quantitative* case for any of the licenses. However, as I pointed out in an earlier posting, selection of a license is an act with both monetary/business/financial *and* ideological implications. The two are joined at the waist. I think it would be foolish to try and consider the money and the beliefs seperately; the two are now irreversibly entangled. Tread carefully, dear traveller. An interesting point arises from the quote, however. I'd never really though about how a person choosing among competing software is affected by the license. I've always looked from the licensor's view, not the licensee's. Obviously, the GPL is aimed at being "user-protective" rather than "business-protective". It distinctly expempts the author from liability, and enforces their ownership, but it essentially throws *control* of that code out to the community. In economics, *ownership* and *control* are very different propositions. In the Galbraithian world-view, they are the basis of economic Power ... and I'm wandering. Pardon me. And I'll grant you that the GPL has done great things for free software. In times when nobody in business thought free software was interesting, it kept things moving. To that end, the GPL is a wonderful thing. On the other hand, people are starting to see real economic benefit (resource management, compatibility, standardization) to open source. The business case. "The marketing campaign", which I believe is one of the descriptions that ESR gave the whole "open source" push. I disagree -- it looks like people are starting to see the benefits of getting their end users to fix bugs. Which can be a different animal from open source entirely. They'll just as quickly discover that customers can honestly tell how shitty their software is. Relying on your customer to fix bugs is like a car company expecting customers to repair the faulty seat-belt designs on a new model. It's not going to last: companies with shitty source will lose both rep. and business if they go open source. [note: I'm not sure if I agree with the APSL but I'm not flaming it here; I'm trying to push the idea that there are different degrees of freedom to software, and I happen to like the highest degree possible] That's why a plurality of licenses exist. Diversity is healthy. But some wonder if the GPL's virality is really a play at a kind of monopoly; dominance over the licensing ecosystem. One of the principle reasons for choosing the GPL in my brief review was being "approved for use" with the vast body of already GPL'd code. This is very much like buying Microsoft Word because ... well ... everyone else uses it. So much easier to conform than to choose another option. Of course, the fastest way to open software up is to provide lots of endearing and attractive open source options, that strongly encourages more open software. The GPL in some cases is overkill (there's a strong encouragement in the BSD family for proprietary vendors to give back), but in some cases its necessary. The GPL is a good license. The viral clause is like an ideological agreement button: "By selecting this license, you agree that the FSF is correct in protecting user freedom ..." The GPL's major flaw is its unbounded viral nature. [snip] But you have to at least specify what you mean by derivative works, and allow for the possibility of integration of open code with closed code. This will be where the license fails in court. A new version - a 2.1 - needs to *explicitly* define the limits of the viral clause, or there will be hell to pay. Microsoft could kill business interest in the GPL by deliberate infringement, followed by a huge, protracted courtcase during which time all GPL'd code enters legal limbo in the eyes of the business community. The GPL needs more fire-proofing, in my view. Do you mean by this that if the GPL were more specific in its allowances and prohibitions, it would make for more acceptance and a better license? I can agree with that. It's important to put people at ease that their use of a license is doing what they think it's doing, and clear language is important there. The clear language is good. I suspect the GPL is popular partially because it is *simple*. The MPL is complex. The APSL is complex. The SCSL is complex. But the GPL and the BSDL and XL are all simple non-legalistic licenses. Hackers don't have time to be lawyers. And yes, you can probably find ways to change the code such that you don't have to contribute anything of value if you dance around the license enough, but I can accept that. If people want
Re: gpl backlash?
| Obviously, the GPL is aimed at being "user-protective" rather than | "business-protective". No. It's "author-protective". You write software. You want people to use it (for whatever reasons), but you have certain restrictions you use on usage to protect you as the author. This is that case with pretty much every license. In the GPL's case, the restriction is that derivative works are also GPL'ed. Now I'm the user, and I want to write some software which maybe uses a snippet of code from bash. For example, maybe I want to use readline. Well, now I'm forced to GPL my work. That's not protecting me as the user; that's "protecting" the authors of readline. Even so, it's hardly "protecting" the author: his code remains free no matter what I do with it. It's more of a trade. I use that code in exchange for making my code GPL'ed as well. For some code I may be willing to do that. On the other hand, for some code, maybe I'm not. This is not tied to me being a business. Maybe I don't agree with that philosophy, and would rather write and use code that is less restrictive, and although I think software should be open, I don't feel the need to impose that view on my users. So maybe the GPL doesn't work for me. -Fred -- Wilfredo Sanchez, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apple Computer, Inc., Core Operating Systems / BSD Technical Lead, Darwin Project 1 Infinite Loop, 302-4K, Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: gpl backlash?
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:13:25 -0700 From: Wilfredo Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Do you mean by this that if the GPL were more specific in its | allowances and prohibitions, it would make for more acceptance and a | better license? Most certainly. For starters, it should define "derived work" if it's going to use that term in its requirements. My understanding is that ``derived work'' has a defined legal meaning in the context of copyrights. There is no pressing need for the GPL to define it. You can find more information by poking around under http://www.loc.gov, e.g., http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/ (Of course this only applies to U.S. law.) It's certainly true that the notion of derived work becomes very murky when it comes to computer programs, just as it does in other fields such as music. But that is not a fault of the GPL. It is reasonable and, I think, correct for the GPL to defer to copyright law and the federal courts when it comes to the meaning of ``derived work.'' It leaves us confused right now, but it avoids creating a definition which may become meaningless or invalid as programming technology advances. Ian
Re: gpl backlash?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit: For example, I'd submit that _reference_ is derivation where software is concerned. If you call into my library from your program, it's a derived work. Then in your view, only GPL-compatible programs can be run under Linux? -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
Re: gpl backlash?
Kyle Rose scripsit: [T]he LGPL, the license under which the major libraries are released, specifically allows non-free programs to link to binaries under that license. The kernel, however (which is just another library), is under the GPL. I know that Linus explicitly states that the GPL's viral properties do not spread from the kernel to user-mode code, but I don't see how that can be made consistent with the GPL's claim that "changing it [the GPL] is not allowed." -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
Re: gpl backlash?
John Cowan writes: Kyle Rose scripsit: [T]he LGPL, the license under which the major libraries are released, specifically allows non-free programs to link to binaries under that license. The kernel, however (which is just another library), is under the GPL. I know that Linus explicitly states that the GPL's viral properties do not spread from the kernel to user-mode code, but I don't see how that can be made consistent with the GPL's claim that "changing it [the GPL] is not allowed." It could be viewed as an additional permission, making Linux dual-licensed, except that Linus doesn't have authority to grant that permission on behalf of all of the other developers -- who presumably have the right to assert that this is either (1) merely Linus's personal opinion, and factually incorrect; or (2) merely Linus's personal decision to dual-license _his own_ code, and therefore not applicable to their own code, which, in compliance with the terms of the GPL, was released under the GPL (so that Linus lacks the authority to unilaterally re-license their work); or (3) a copyright violation on Linus's part, because he made an unauthorized derived work from the GPL, which is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation; or (4) a mistake on Richard Stallman's part, because Linus's change to the GPL is fair use, and not a copyright violation. (I think most, if not all, people who contribute to the kernel are willing to accept Linus's judgment on this point, but that doesn't mean that it might not be an issue in the future.) -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] They said look at the light we're giving you, / And the darkness that we're saving you from. -- Dar Williams, "The Great Unknown" http://ishmael.geecs.org/~sigma/ (personal) http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF)
Re: gpl backlash?
Matthew C. Weigel writes: On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote: It could be viewed as an additional permission, making Linux dual-licensed, except that Linus doesn't have authority to grant that permission on behalf of all of the other developers -- who presumably have the right to assert that this is either No, he only has the authority to grant that on the code he originally wrote -- but that is part of the license, which by the GPL's viral nature ensures that all code distributed which is a derivative work of the kernel is, then, under the same license. _If_ Linus is allowed to modify the GPL, and actually did so (or if he modified it despite being forbidden to do so). It's not totally obvious that the sentence there is intended to be "part of the license", as opposed to a non-binding observation by Linus, or an expression of his wishes. (2) merely Linus's personal decision to dual-license _his own_ code, and therefore not applicable to their own code, which, in compliance with the terms of the GPL, was released under the GPL (so that Linus lacks the authority to unilaterally re-license their work); or But it wasn't released under the pristine GPL. _If_ Linus is allowed to modify the GPL, and actually did so (or if he modified it despite being forbidden to do so). (3) a copyright violation on Linus's part, because he made an unauthorized derived work from the GPL, which is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation; or Except that such additions are authorized -- hence it's not "...an unauthorized derived work..." They're not authorized, so far as we can tell from what's stated in public: Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. [...] Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. It's possible that the FSF explicitly gave Linus permission to modify the GPL, but we don't have any way of knowing that. (4) a mistake on Richard Stallman's part, because Linus's change to the GPL is fair use, and not a copyright violation. ??? How is it a mistake on RMS' part, even given that your above statements are true? Each of these possibilities, (1) through (4), is meant to be mutually exclusive with all the others. The "mistake" would be if fair use allows Linus to modify the GPL by adding to it (as opposed to "mere aggregation" with another, separate license :-) additional terms or permissions, since Stallman certainly did _not_ want people to be able to do so as a general rule. In that case, Stallman's claim that "changing it is not allowed" is not correct, and this would be the "mistake" to which (4) refers. -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] They said look at the light we're giving you, / And the darkness that we're saving you from. -- Dar Williams, "The Great Unknown" http://ishmael.geecs.org/~sigma/ (personal) http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF)
Re: gpl backlash?
| For example, I'd submit that _reference_ is derivation where software is | concerned. If you call into my library from your program, it's a derived | work. However, copyright law doesn't take that into account and is only | concerned with copying. And therein lies a serious problem, because I think your assertion is a load of hooey. Just becuase I have code that make calls to a certain API, which you happen to have implemented, doesn't mean that I'm deriving from your code. I might write code against the POSIX foobar() API, and maybe someone drops a GPL'ed implementation of libfoobar in place of the dylib (with a free implementation) that I was using, doesn't make my code derived. And it doesn't matter who is right here; my point is we can't know. -Fred -- Wilfredo Sanchez, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apple Computer, Inc., Core Operating Systems / BSD Technical Lead, Darwin Project 1 Infinite Loop, 302-4K, Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: gpl backlash?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Postulate that you write an application that works with a library full of no-op stubs. That library just happens to match the interface of a GPL-ed product I've written, and with that library it is a functioning product. Then you ship that application with the _intent_ that the user combine it with my library to run it, which is demonstrated by the fact that it doesn't do useful work any other way or you haven't shipped an alternative library to that same user. I think I'd have a legitimate complaint. Unfortunately, as much as I love the GPL, I don't think this is enforcable. Remember that the GPL covers only distribution, not use; hence, if the distribution of a work linked against a library interface (even that for which only a GPL'ed implementation exists) does not contain any actual code from that library, it cannot be considered a derived work. Although IANAL, it would be like suing critics for reviews which contain "hooks" into the book (e.g., character names, chapter and/or event references, etc.) Kyle - -- Kyle R. Rose "They can try to bind our arms, Laboratory for Computer ScienceBut they cannot chain our minds MIT NE43-309, 617-253-5883 or hearts..." http://web.mit.edu/krr/www/ Stratovarius [EMAIL PROTECTED] Forever Free -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v0.9.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE3nlT766jzSko6g9wRAmTsAKD46FhexYayhxIINjpBIQL+cuPWiACgoxGT UAPnBJ5uRJN2s6s0aNlUN74= =WIA+ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: gpl backlash?
From: Kyle Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unfortunately, as much as I love the GPL, I don't think this is enforcable. Remember that the GPL covers only distribution, not use; hence, if the distribution of a work linked against a library interface (even that for which only a GPL'ed implementation exists) does not contain any actual code from that library, it cannot be considered a derived work. Remember, we're talking about how the concept of a derived product has not kept up with software. So, I agree that this may not be enforcable today, but I might work toward making it enforcable. In the meantime, I'd hope that good citizens would comply with the intent of my license even if the possibility for successful enforcement is low. Although IANAL, it would be like suing critics for reviews which contain "hooks" into the book (e.g., character names, chapter and/or event references, etc.) A closer metaphor might be cross-linking of web sites. For example, say I took the site that you spent a lot to produce, and presented it inside of a frame with all of my own ads around the border. You'd have a right to object. This is another area where copyright law _has_not_kept_up_. Thanks Bruce
Re: gpl backlash?
Postulate that you write an application that works with a library full of no-op stubs. That library just happens to match the interface of a GPL-ed product I've written, and with that library it is a functioning product. Then you ship that application with the _intent_ that the user combine it with my library to run it, which is demonstrated by the fact that it doesn't do useful work any other way or you haven't shipped an alternative library to that same user. I think I'd have a legitimate complaint. If the application was created without ever using the GPL-ed code, it is clearly not a derivative work until the end user combines it with the GPL-ed code. Even if the GPL-ed code was used for testing purposes, I believe the courts consider that "fair use" and not creating a derivative work. Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824 The Reuse RKT: Efficient awareness for software reuse: Free WWW site lists over 6000 of the most popular open source libraries, functions, and applications. http://www.mibsoftware.com/reuse/
Re: gpl backlash?
| For the software I personally write, there really isn't much choice but the | GPL. That's because I donate my time to increase the amount of available | free software, _not_ non-free software. I absolutely will not tolerate being | treated as an unpaid employee by someone who takes my contribution and | incorporates it into non-free software, without returning the same value to | the community that I put into it when I made my contribution. Thus, I would | not contribute my time to writing free software without the _protection_ of | the GPL. That's a fairly narrow view, Bruce. NeXT used GPL'ed code for years without adding much value to the GNU Project because they made lots of NeXT-specific changes and didn't care at all whether they got folded into the FSF source base. Sure the software remaind "free", but none of it ever made it into the FSF sources and was therefore generally useless to the Community. Had it not been GPL'ed and had they made it "proprietary," there would have been little difference to anyone. What did this "protection" buy you? On the other hand, Apple has contributed a fair bit (not a terrifically great bit, but certainly something) to NetBSD and Apache despite the lack of any requirements to do so. And we're finally getting our act together and submitting a large body of work to gdb. I just met with a pile of gdb developers at a Cygnus-sponsored gdb party, and they were quite exited to be getting this code. The fact that it's been available for years never helped anyone. The fact that we are now actively trying to merge it in upstream is what counts, and the GPL isn't going to get you that. Which isn't to say that "the GPL is evil"; that's yet another narrow view. I'm just saying that you're not looking at the bigger picture. I would say that the GPL isn't necessary, but I just want better software, not some notion of code virtue. I want to be able to run an open system on my computer, and I want it to be the best open system it can possibly be. So I'll write open software to contribute to the value of that system, and I'll hope that lots of other people will use it and see the value in improving it in the same way. If someone else takes it and decides not to contribute, I don't really care. I'm not anyone's "unpaid employee" because they use my code. My belief is that people who take open source and diverge on their own at in the long-term going to lose. I don't have any doubts about the security of open source, and don't need to force my view onto others. I'd rather welcome them and wait for them to get a clue if they don't already have it. Poo-poo-ing them because they don't share my view isn't going to make my software better if it means they go work on something else instead. So if the GPL limits my audience, I see that as a bug, not a feature. | Have you looked at freshmeat.net lately? At least half of the program | announcements there have "GPL" as their license. That's a lot more than | it used to be. The GPL has momentum. So does MS Windows. That doesn't necessarily make it The Best Thing. -Fred #include std_disclaimer.h /* opinion(Fred) != opinion(Apple) */ -- Wilfredo Sanchez, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apple Computer, Inc., Core Operating Systems / BSD Technical Lead, Darwin Project 1 Infinite Loop, 302-4K, Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: gpl backlash?
1 Infinite Loop, 302-4K, Cupertino, CA This has got to be a joke...? No. It is a circular road in Cupertino which, IIRC, surrounds one of Apple's campuses. (or something like that). The NAMING of the road was certainly a joke, but :) D
Re: gpl backlash?
|NeXT used GPL'ed code for years without adding much value to the
| GNU Project because they made lots of NeXT-specific changes and
| didn't care at all whether they got folded into the FSF source
base.
| Sure the software remaind "free", but none of it ever made it into
| the FSF sources and was therefore generally useless to the
Community.
|
| Except the *NeXT* community.
OK, that's fair.
| Well, different people have different objectives for opening
systems up (or
| making open systems in the first place), of course. My objective is to
| benefit the user, and make the user's life nice.
OK, I like that objective.
| For some things, that means simply ensuring that no one can do
anything to
| the code without letting other people see those changes; the GPL
is nice
| here. From past experience this seems to include compilers, since few
| people can expend the resources to a) write a whole compiler to
introduce a
| new feature or b) write that feature to be portable across every
platform
| the original compiler works for. So the GPL helps to keep people from
| wimping out, and writing in new features for just one platform.
However, it
| also provides the incentive that you don't have to write the rest
of the
| compiler.
Certainly the GPL has worked well here. Writing a compiler is
enough of a pain in the ass that dealing with the GPL, regardless of
your objections, is likely worthwhile.
And I'll grant you that the GPL has done great things for free
software. In times when nobody in business thought free software was
interesting, it kept things moving. To that end, the GPL is a
wonderful thing. On the other hand, people are starting to see real
economic benefit (resource management, compatibility,
standardization) to open source.
The GPL's major flaw is its unbounded viral nature. That scares
(quite reasonable) people away from it, and I think that's a real
bummer. I don't mind the "keep this free" sentiment. (In fact,
Apple's license, which I had some input on, has a similar requirement
to keep derivative works under the same terms, and I think that's
fair.) But you have to at least specify what you mean by derivative
works, and allow for the possibility of integration of open code with
closed code. And yes, you can probably find ways to change the code
such that you don't have to contribute anything of value if you
dance around the license enough, but I can accept that.
With the GNU license, there is no telling whether if I write a
10,000 line program, which has one line:
system("/bin/ls");
and oops, /bin/ls is from GNU fileutils. Well, crap, is my program
infected by the GPL? Does that means I can't run my program on
Linux? Well of course not, you say. But the license doesn't say,
and that's just plain silly. On the other hand, this sort of
confusion might just render the GPL useless in court, and out goes
the "protection" that you're after. Lucky it's never been tried in
court; I'm quite curious about it.
| For other things, the most important thing for the end user is
| compatibility; internet servers, for instance. In those cases,
it's more
| important that *absolutely everything* come from a commnon code base,
| period.
Well, it's important that things interoperate, not that they use
the same code, though sharing code does tend to help that a lot.
| 1 Infinite Loop, 302-4K, Cupertino, CA
|
| This has got to be a joke...?
Yes and no.
-Fred
--
Wilfredo Sanchez, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apple Computer, Inc., Core Operating Systems / BSD
Technical Lead, Darwin Project
1 Infinite Loop, 302-4K, Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: gpl backlash?
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Wilfredo Sanchez wrote: [for readability I've reformatted some comments] | Except the *NeXT* community. OK, that's fair. | making open systems in the first place), of course. My objective | is to benefit the user, and make the user's life nice. OK, I like that objective. Good! [snip] Certainly the GPL has worked well here. Writing a compiler is enough of a pain in the ass that dealing with the GPL, regardless of your objections, is likely worthwhile. And I'll grant you that the GPL has done great things for free software. In times when nobody in business thought free software was interesting, it kept things moving. To that end, the GPL is a wonderful thing. On the other hand, people are starting to see real economic benefit (resource management, compatibility, standardization) to open source. I disagree -- it looks like people are starting to see the benefits of getting their end users to fix bugs. Which can be a different animal from open source entirely. [note: I'm not sure if I agree with the APSL but I'm not flaming it here; I'm trying to push the idea that there are different degrees of freedom to software, and I happen to like the highest degree possible] Of course, the fastest way to open software up is to provide lots of endearing and attractive open source options, that strongly encourages more open software. The GPL in some cases is overkill (there's a strong encouragement in the BSD family for proprietary vendors to give back), but in some cases its necessary. The GPL's major flaw is its unbounded viral nature. [snip] But you have to at least specify what you mean by derivative works, and allow for the possibility of integration of open code with closed code. Do you mean by this that if the GPL were more specific in its allowances and prohibitions, it would make for more acceptance and a better license? I can agree with that. It's important to put people at ease that their use of a license is doing what they think it's doing, and clear language is important there. And yes, you can probably find ways to change the code such that you don't have to contribute anything of value if you dance around the license enough, but I can accept that. As can I. It would be difficult to add proprietary extensions to gcc, for instance, without making a clearly derivative work (as opposed to the below). the "protection" that you're after. Lucky it's never been tried in court; I'm quite curious about it. As am I. For the rest of it, see above. | For other things, the most important thing for the end user is | compatibility; internet servers, for instance. In those cases, it's more | important that *absolutely everything* come from a commnon code base, | period. Well, it's important that things interoperate, not that they use the same code, though sharing code does tend to help that a lot. The fastest way to push a standard out is to give people the code to implement the standard, so that it will work with some minor tweaks and studying. It looks to me like X won this way, as well as a lot of BSD stuff (I'm almost certain OS/2 uses some BSD code for its networking stuff, for example). | 1 Infinite Loop, 302-4K, Cupertino, CA | | This has got to be a joke...? Yes and no. Those Crazy Californians again, I guess. Yes, my roots go to California too :) On a side note, has anyone been receiving multiple copies of messages? I received the message I'm responding to *thrice*. Matthew Weigel Programmer/Sysadmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Operating Systems Advocate http://www.pitt.edu/~weigel
Re: gpl backlash?
| I disagree -- it looks like people are starting to see the benefits of | getting their end users to fix bugs. Which can be a different animal | from open source entirely. Not entirely. I don't mind paying for software. What kills me is "that damned bug that's been there forever and why don't they fix it it's so easy if only I could get the code". There is nothing wrong with end users being able to fix bugs, and there is nothing wrong with a business realizing that this can be mutually beneficial. | [note: I'm not sure if I agree with the APSL but I'm not flaming it | here; I'm trying to push the idea that there are different degrees of | freedom to software, and I happen to like the highest degree possible] The APSL is new. I personally think it will need to evolve further, but it's pretty good for where we are today. | Do you mean by this that if the GPL were more specific in its | allowances and prohibitions, it would make for more acceptance and a | better license? Most certainly. For starters, it should define "derived work" if it's going to use that term in its requirements. | The fastest way to push a standard out is to give people the code to | implement the standard, so that it will work with some minor tweaks and | studying. It looks to me like X won this way Yeah, sometimes this backfires. | On a side note, has anyone been receiving multiple copies of messages? I | received the message I'm responding to *thrice*. Not I. -Fred #include std_disclaimer.h /* opinion(Fred) != opinion(Apple) */ -- Wilfredo Sanchez, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apple Computer, Inc., Core Operating Systems / BSD Technical Lead, Darwin Project 1 Infinite Loop, 302-4K, Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: gpl backlash?
Hi all; ... a maiden poster here. Trust me to pick a holy war to start with, eh? snip Seems to be a backlash against the GPL lately - slashdot has posted numerous articles on freebsd, which invariably say that "the gpl is evil (blah blah), and use freebsd because it's better. insert holy war here". Anybody else noticed this (and care to comment on it)? I've noticed it, yes. To me the issue that invariably crops up is the viral nature of the GPL. Specifically, that inclusion of GPL'd code means that the larger work must in turn be GPL'd. This has pros and cons, which are both monetary *and* ideological. And when money and belief meet head on ... well ... things get messy. Ask the Crusaders. Pros of viral GPL: Ideological: It enforces freedom. User freedom is wholly ensured. The author of the code also has legal resourse if his code is taken for use without his permission (this could be *vaguely* hidden in a compiled program). Monetary: It ensures that GPL'd code will always be available for the cost of a download - essentially free (as in free beer). The low opp. cost of GPL'd code makes it very attractive to purchasers. Some businesses are nervous at the possibility of their code been opened, but may soon realise that it levels the playing field in an absolute way - nobody gains advantage in a GPL'd world. Cons of a viral GPL: Ideological: There are some the GPL is not free at all, that is in fact enforced, top-down "Freedom by Command", not unlike being liberated by the Red Army. Others feel that it is too ideological, full stop. Monetary: Some companies and people may balk at their expensively developed code being made available in an environment where it cannot be sold. They may also feel that they are performing free RD for competitors. The above list is not comprehensive, by any means. I begin to think that this list might wish to work towards a License HOW-TO, which sets out several aspects of the common licenses and how to choose your best choice. For maximum interoperability with the GNU project and low hacker objection, for example, the GPL is the only choice. Signal 11 Be well; JC.
gpl backlash?
Thought I'd mention that the licensing has changed for "php4" aka zend. It was under the GPL, but now it appears to be under the QPL (just like kde). Seems to be a backlash against the GPL lately - slashdot has posted numerous articles on freebsd, which invariably say that "the gpl is evil (blah blah), and use freebsd because it's better. insert holy war here". Anybody else noticed this (and care to comment on it)? -- Signal 11
