On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 10:41 -0400, max bianco wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:23 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Which is a bizarre thing to be concerned about because the only thing they
> > could possibly do to diminish the value of the original copy would be to
> > improve it so much that no one would want the original. As a potential user
> > of that improved version, I think that restriction is a bad thing. And most
> > bizarre of all is the notion that I can't obtain my own copy of a GPL'd
> > library, and someone else's code under their own terms separately.
> >
> The hard work is done by the original author. So if I understand you
> correctly, its ok with you if i use your code, improve it, and
> relicense it so what you freely contributed is now going to cost you
> money. So your hard work now belongs to someone else.
>
I don't think anyone is talking about modifying your code and
relicensing it. That would clearly be a derived work, and there's no
question you can impose conditions on its redistribution.
You write a library. I write a program that calls routines in your
library. Now the question is whether your license can impose conditions
on my distribution of my own code. That's a fuzzy, gray area, but (to
mix a metaphor) it's just the tip of the iceberg of complexity.
ChipCo creates a piece of specialized hardware and releases a
proprietary driver. I write code to interface your library and the
ChipCo driver. Can your license prevent me from distributing my code?
If so, you and I might have a reasonable disagreement about whether
that's a good thing. But you can't deny that some people who might
benefit from my code (and by extension, your code) are prevented from
doing so. You can only argue that some greater good is served by their
suffering. Note that I want to be generous with my code and release it
under an open-source license; I'm not trying to unfairly benefit from
your work.
You write a library and distribute it under an open-source license. I
write a library and distribute it under a slightly different--but
incompatible--open-source license. Les writes a program that links to
both libraries. If your license can impose conditions on Les's
distribution of his program, then users who would get value from Les's
program are SOL. Note that nothing here violates the spirit of OSS.
Everyone involved wants to be generous. Nobody is trying to unfairly
benefit from anyone else's work. But due to a technicality, nobody can
benefit from Les's work at all! That seems like a shame, doesn't it?
--
Matthew Saltzman
Clemson University Math Sciences
mjs AT clemson DOT edu
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
