Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
I can't advocate it because I believe its terms are immoral.
That's rich! Made my day already :)
Aside from the moral issue of demanding that other people give up
choices of terms on their own contributions, consider the sheer bulk of
what it prohibits compared to what it allows:
It permits the permutation of all combinations of all GPL-encumbered
code.
It prohibits the permutation of all combinations of GPL-encumbered
code with any that cannot be GPL-encumbered.
As long as there is any code with non-GPL terms, the latter set is
obviously larger.
Or, if you are familiar with software development, you might agree that
about 10% of the time/effort goes into the initial implementation of a
new program and 90% goes into testing, debugging, and subsequent
maintenance. So in a typical GPL case, the person who does that initial
10% limits the choices of how the subsequent 90% can be done. It's just
wrong any way you look at it.
You seem to consider "sharing" proprietary software is sharing. I think
that's wrong since to me it is not sharing but, instead, gaining control.
No, I think proprietary software is reasonable
I think this wrap ups very well all your argument. You start from a
premise that I fundamentally reject as absurd, and from the absurd
anything can be deduced.
Proprietary works are a side issue here as I am more concerned about the
restrictions against combinations with MPL, CDDL, orginal BSD and other
less resticted licenses, but do you think it is reasonable to require
payment for your work in any field? And if so, how is creating software
different from other work?
To require payment for my work? Absolutely. Now how do you define
payment? I can see many forms of payment:
* cash
* self satisfaction
* benemerity
* gratefulness
* ...
And I fully support that people develop GPL'ed software for hire.
That's possible but except in unlikely circumstances, one customer must
pay the full cost of development. There is no model for fair
distribution of development cost among a large set of users since the
GPL permits the first customer to give copies away freely.
but BSD, MIT, MPL, CDDL, Apache, and similar less restricted
licenses are about sharing. GPL is about taking away other people's
choices.
How can something that isn't there be taken away? The GNU GPL adds to
people's choices. The default is no choice at all.
The GPL is no different than a proprietary license in that respect.
Now I am *sure* you are trolling.
A proprietary license gives some rights that you don't have without it;
the GPL gives you some rights you don't have without accepting it. No
difference in that respect. But a proprietary license rarely demands
that you place restrictions on how other people can create new things
and share them.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
