From: "Sean" <seanlkml@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 15:30:11 -0700
"Alan M. Evans" <ame1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Nobody but you is arguing about *what* the GPL says. We only say that in
some specific cases, quite reasonable uses are forbidden by the GPL. And
that's a pity. The GPL doesn't differentiate between other code using
GPL code and GPL code using other code. While the former seems quite
wrong, the latter seems not so bad in some cases.
Sigh, you look at the situation and only blame the GPL. If the proprietary
license was any different the situation would be remedied just as easily.
For instance if the proprietary license said.. here's the source code
and you can use it with GPL code but nothing else. That would resolve the
problem people in this thread are complaining about too. But it seems
people are so indoctrinated with accepting the restrictions placed on
them by typical proprietary licenses they can only focus their proposed
solutions on how the GPL could be changed to make the situation different.
By way of illustration, whats the difference between: 1. GPL code using
MIT code, and 2. MIT code using GPL code? The answer is that (1) can be
done by relicensing the MIT code and (2) can't be done. So which license
is preventing integration here?
You're right. I'm not arguing that there is _no_ restriction to using
GPL. What i'm arguing is that it still provides so much more freedom
of use than most proprietary licenses that it's just crazy to ask GPL
to give up the small restrictions it imposes and ask for nothing to be
relaxed by the proprietary vendors. It's trying to solve the problem
at the wrong end. The reason for this GPL restriction is sound and
quite reasonable. If you wouldn't dream of proposing that the proprietary
world give up its standard licensing practices, why on earth would you
ask that of the GPL world? The GPL is a simple, liberal effective license
that gives you great freedoms beyond what you get with other software.
If the BSD or MIT licenses are more appealing to you, then by all means
join those communities and get involved there. Many people have found that
the GPL way is more rewarding, productive and equitable. But demanding
that the GPL be changed when it has proved to be quite effective is just
nuts.
It was overly literal minded GPL weenies who basically drove off one
kernel developer who was working with the deep magic of the chipsets
involved. His business model was to make money, enough to live on and
recoup his expenses for paying for special documents, and when he had
paid for his time give the work to the Linux community under GPL. But
he tried to make money to pay for doing the work. (I don't remember if
he walked off or became captive of some one of the large distros.) If
GPL allowed this form of business model, a reasonable income to cover
business expenses and a personal salary during the time the code was
developed followed by a full GPL release, I for one would not be as
put off of working with Open Source software. That would take the
"sore" out of the "Open Sores" problem. I do not want to get rich. I
just want a decent income for decent work AND an incentive to go on
to new work rather than try to sit and collect money for a decade
earning the cost of building the product 100 times over.
Note that I am at a stretch only going so far as to suggest that a
change in philosophy might be productive. It would draw in a whole
lot of people like me. Let me earn $10000 net for 100 hours of work
and then release it GPL. Those who pay for early copies get the benefit
of the early copy. All get the source code once the target is met or
say three years have passed and I go on to something new to repeat the
cycle. This avoids several most annoying problems. The orphan product
issue goes away. The source code must be released in three years or
sooner from the first distribution. The disincentive of not being able
to earn an income from honest work to provide others with a product
that does not otherwise exist goes away. As it is, though, the grasping
tentacles of the GPL make this kind of sharing with the GPL world quite
impossible. And the perceived dog in the manger attitude of GPL leaves
me quite disinclined to share my source code with GPL even for products
that are quite mature at this point.
I am suggesting a change. I am not, REPEAT NOT, demanding it. I am
offering reasons I think the change would be productive. It might
also spark some life into some of the excellent ideas languishing on
SourceForge because they'd require more work than the people who could
do it wish to donate. But, this is only a suggestion. It is also why
I feel GPL should be rethought from the ground up without some of RMS's
more extreme political attitudes.
{^_^}
