On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 12:56 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > Les wrote: > > >>>>> Les' mission is to save us from the evils of GPL license. > > > There are several "les"s on this list. I would like to be referred to > > as Lesh to help all of > > Yes, I was going to point out that I haven't been in the Navy and was > probably confused with one of the others in that respect. ---- I think that was Ricky suffering from flash back. ---- > > Regarding the GPL, though, it is all a matter of religion. Mine is that > making something deliberately not interoperate with something else, > whether by refusing to publish an interface spec, refusing to use > standard protocols, or licensing in such a way that interoperation (or > distributing working components together)is prohibited will harm random > people and is thus pure evil. ---- you are of course calling the Linux kernel evil - notwithstanding that the intent was always to restrict the ability of commercial interests so that the source and the endless improvements upon always remained available to all users. Of course this is unlike something like a BSD license which permits absorption and further development without any requirement to release their improvements. You are entitled to your opinion though ---- > Licensing in ways that have a cost per instance or per user may be > moderately evil but that still lets people make their own choices based > on individual merits. Taking that choice away is pure evil. ---- Curious perspective...the only problem that I have with this is your characterization itself. ---- > For standalone programs the GPL doesn't necessarily have these evil > effects. For things that should be usable in cooperative efforts but > can't because of license restrictions, it does. There's no accounting > for religions, though, and no doubt others believe the harm is justified > by something or other. ---- Seeing as how the entirety of the Linux kernel is GPL license and to change now would require a complete abandonment of the current kernel code and start from scratch, your point - however it might be made is entirely moot. The license chosen for Linux kernel development was of course Linus's and others who contribute code to the kernel are necessarily bound by the GPL license and of course, they can choose not to contribute code. Of course the thing that makes your rich is also the thing that makes you poor and vice versa. The Linux kernel code, like all GPL license code, will always be available to continue, fork, examine, etc. and commercial enhancement of GPL code must necessarily be released in source as required...I feel rich. Craig
