On Monday 31 December 2007 17:24, Les Mikesell wrote: > Alan Cox wrote: > >> Sorry, I just don't understand the concept of _wanting_ to prevent the > >> distribution of improved versions of code and keeping others from having > >> it, while at the same time claiming it is free. > > > > Its really very simple. The GPL requires you provide any contributions > > under a licence that makes them free. > > You mean restricted, don't you? Freedom implies responsibility, if it is not to turn into chaos. GPL restrictions are there to enforce that derived code be free in a responsible way. Absolute freedom (ie. freedom without responsibility) is a Bad Thing. Just imagine that you write a piece of code from scratch, and release it on the web without *any* licence. It would be absolutely free. It would be so free, in fact, that nothing could prevent me from downloading it and claiming my own copyright or patent that forbids you to release it. While this is unethical, if you give me complete freedom, it is legal. So the GPL licence is a way to balance restrictions vs. freedom in a way that ensures that the author is responsible (in an ethical sense) and prevents his code from being hijacked by a third party. You may question if this is well-balanced, but I believe that the "best" answer does not exist. And GPL does the job somehow. Maybe not without side-effects, but I cannot think of a way to remove all possible side-effects of any potential license that you might call "better". Btw, I am not a pro on legal stuff, this is just my intuitive view of things. :-) Marko Marko Vojinovic Institute of Physics University of Belgrade ====================== e-mail: vmarko@xxxxxxxxxxxx
