On 13-Apr-07, at 11:39 AM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
IMHO, this is a faulty conclusion.
And I disagree. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
The interesting use case of "contributing", and I think the one
that spurred
the creation of the GPL, is "I use this but I need to customise it
a bit". In
this situation it's quite reasonable that you would abide by the
conditions
I've chosen for the stuff you're using.
If I want to customise some of your code, I agree that it's
reasonable for
me to abide by whatever license you chose.
OK.
But if I want to add something
completely new (say, a new module for emacs), the code for which
lives in
new and separate files from your code, why should you be able to
dictate to
me what license I use?
Your answer will no doubt be "no one is forcing you to add that
module to
my program", and you'd be correct. But then we all potentially suffer
because we can't use my new functionality.
I agree with you and Joerg that the GPL definition "derived work" can
be ambiguous. We won't resolve that in this thread. :)
All the above is, of course, hypothetical, becuase there's no way
I'd put
myself in that situation in the first place. I think it's wrong
for me
to dictate license terms to other people.
We disagree that the GPL does that, in general. This basically
applies to GPL'd "platforms" such as Linux, in any case. Standalone
products are much less problematic.
When I publish bodies of work,
I want people who change my code to make their changes publically
available,
so that the community as a whole can be enriched. But if someone
else wants
to add functionality (in the form of new files),
Except it doesn't say "files". Derivation is conceptual. Modules,
libraries are where the greyness comes in, agreed.
I object to the notion that
I can dictate to them the terms under which they license their code.
In short: if you modify MY code, you must abide by my choice of
license. If
you contribute new files to my program, they YOU get to dictate the
license
(provided, of course, that your license allows combination with mine).
'Viral' is just not the right term. Rather than spreading it (as I
say,
What, prey tell, would be your term for something that spreads to
without
choice?
associated with some of the ugliest and most dishonest campaigns),
it seems
you should just admit that you personally don't happen to like
this clause of
I personally don't like this clause of the GPL. But the fact that
it has
been "associated with some of the ugliest and most dishonest
campaigns"
doesn't make it (the word viral) an inaccurate description.
We'll disagree.
the GPL (which is designed to protect users from familiar
catastrophes). But
many do, or they wouldn't deliberately choose this license.
No, the GPL was written to further the FSF's cause.
I think that's a mischaracterisation. It was designed to protect
users. From:
- a program in which they find a bug that the vendor won't/can't fix
(maybe the vendor went out of business)
- vendors blackmailing customers by lock-in (yes, that's their right;
but the FSF wanted to operate in a framework that doesn't include this)
- a program they own but can't run anymore (can't port, e.g.)
and so on.
Choosing a GPL product means you're choosing, as a user, to avoid
such problems in future.
Such problems were epidemic and showed every sign of getting worse at
the time RMS decided to do something about it. I can't imagine how
diseased the software industry would be today, if he had not.
And I submit that many
of the people who chose the GPL for their code don't really know
why they're
doing so, apart from the fact that it's a well-known open source
license, and
"everyone else does it".
Can't speak for others, but I don't think it's true of myself. I
wouldn't choose any weaker license.
--Toby
--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member
CEO,
My Online Home Inventory
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
