On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 20:15 -0800, jdow wrote: > From: "Craig White" <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 20:09 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > >> Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: > >> > Christofer C. Bell wrote: > >> > > >> >>On 1/19/06, Mike McCarty <mike.mccarty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>>BTW, desiring to control the behavior of others is generally > >> >>>considered a personality disorder. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>BTW, that's exactly what commerical EULAs do, also. So commerical > >> >>software distributors are all rife with personality disorders, as > >> >>well? > >> >> > >> > > >> > After reading a few EULAs, do you any droughts about them having > >> > "personality disorders"? > >> > >> Some of them seem to, I agree. But not all EULAs are bad. > >> Take, for example, GPL. Do you think it is a bad EULA? > > --- > > for the EU, it's a pretty good deal - in fact, I think that's why most > > of us are here. > > > > Not being a programmer, I stay out of the fray and pretty much figure > > that right or wrong, every programmer has the right to determine, > > what/where/when/how they practice their craft and who gets to > > see/use/inspect their craft. > > > > This discussion has ranged to widely to ever get some type of agreement > > amongst the people who have sounded off and to some extent, there is a > > lot of agreement. > > Please let's keep this in perspective. As a user GPL is great for me. > As a developer it might not be as risky as I perceive it to be as a > non-lawyer and person who cannot afford to place a lawyer on retainer > for reviewing the GPL situation. As ME as a developer, therefore, it is > too risky as a development platform, even though I keep looking at it > as a means to escape Microsoft's claws. There is nothing risky about the GPL at all. The [L]GPL are "just two licenses" among many. To be able to develop SW based on libraries using the [L]GPL you have to make your SW compliant to them. This is by no means any different from having to make you SW compliant to any other libraries' license models, be they from M$ or whom else. The [L]GPL have implications on the licensing to chose for your work, other licensing might have impacts on your budget (royalty fees for libraries your work is based on), on your SW's quality/stability (bugs in closed source work), flexibility (No possibility to extend) or efficiency (Original authors using internal APIs in their works). > So it's hard to call GPL good or bad. It's simply GPL. Some aspects of > it are rather good and useful. Exactly! But it's neither "good or bad" nor "black or white" to developers nor to users. The [L]GPL are aiming at a different development model. It is aiming at sharing work and is *one* fundamental brick of OSS - The development model Fedora and Linux are based on. If a developer wants to run a business, which wants to make "money with nothing", the [L]GPL are not for you. If a developer wants to share his work with others, e.g. because the effort is too much for an individual/small group, the GPL is for you, because it prevents a developer's work to be abused by others. The working principle is simple: You invest your money and donate your work to be shared by others - Therefore you want other developers to be obliged to do the same. If a developer wants to invest his money, but finds it acceptable others (e.g. M$) making big money with his work, he should put his work under a different licensing - Some folks will find this acceptable, I find this immoral. > And some aspects of it seemed designed > to stifle earning a living with it as a programmer not part of a big > company that pays for private in house development or pays for sufficient > legal review of code to make sure no aspects of GPL have been allowed to > encroach on proprietary development work. The safe alternative, esp. to individuals and small groups of developers, would be to apply the GPL to their work - That's the "infective nature of the GPL" ;) Ralf
