On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:28:50 +0200, Jérôme M. Berger wrote:

> 	The issue here isn't what the *original* author can do. The 
problem
> arises when somebody wants to reuse parts of the original code. The
> sequence of events goes like this:
> ~ - You write some code and license it under the GPL; ~ - I take your
> code (or part of it), write some more code that interfaces with yours
> and want to distribute it. Then I can't choose the license under which I
> distribute *my* code. The GPL has taken a fundamental freedom from me,
> just because I interface with some code that is GPLed. Therefore I don't
> regard the GPL as "free" (on the other hand, I do regard the LGPL as
> "free": it ensures that the LGPLed code will remain available while not
> restricting my freedom to write and distribute code that interfaces with
> it).

Well, as a software developer, I *may* not want people to use my code in 
something they make money off of, or something that removes my copyright 
from my code, or something that is closed source.

I can *totally* understand why an author may choose to pick a license 
like this - because they want to be free to see how their code is being 
used.  BSD isn't free to see how Microsoft has implemented the BSD TCP/IP 
stack, because the MS code is closed, even though it's based on the BSD 
stack (or rather, it is the BSD stack - evidenced by behaviours of the 
stack itself that are unique to that implementation).

It's all a question of what the original author desires be done with 
their code.  I can see that maybe the FSF point of view is that the 
original author should be free to see how their code is used and to not 
have others profit financially from it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message