On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 20:13 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > Which has no effect on the amount or quality of free software. Incorrect. Consider the case of G++ (the GNU C++ compiler). It was developed on its own by MCC, who normally made their software proprietary. They based it on GCC, so the only legal way they could release it as their product was under the terms of the GNU GPL. This is similar to the GNU Objective C compiler, created originally by NeXT, who wanted to release it as a bunch of object files that the user could then link to the rest of GCC. They were also forced to release their code under the GPL because of this. As another example, look at the patents and code given to GNU/Linux by very big companies such as IBM. In an interview with one of IBM's Linux team (which I cannot find at the moment), he answered that this idea of "copyleft" was one of the single most important reasons IBM decided to release the various code. IBM realized that, thanks to licenses such as the GNU GPL, the code they release will *always* be free, and their competitor(s) could *never* in the future modify/enhance it and turn it into a competitive proprietary product. These are just a few examples. I think Richard Stallman said it best in his essay, "Pragmatic Idealism" (part of his "Free Software, Free Society" collection of essays).[1] > Do you consider yourself competent to decide for yourself if you > want to use a proprietary product for some purpose or other? Do > you really need some fanatic dictating your choices for you? I do consider myself quite competent. While I am essentially forced to use a few proprietary products at work, I choose, of my own will and understanding, to use Free software alternatives wherever available. > > In effect, it *guarantees* that *anyone* > > who gets a copy of the program *must* have the freedoms to study, > > modify, and/or redistribute the program under these same conditions. > > It accomplishes that by reducing the amount of software than > can be available. It can't force people to make new software, > it can only prevent people from sharing their work in any > way not dictated by the GPL. Forcing derivative works to also be copylefted under the same terms is exactly how the GPL enforces its freedoms granted to the users. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html -- Peter Gordon (codergeek42) GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xDA3634D7 Fingerprint: 0629 F604 3C14 937E F088 E5E9 B3CB 48EC DA36 34D7
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
