Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
> No. You're using the much better product.
 > All you're saying is that the GPL prevents anyone from dedicating
 > enough resources to make it worth paying money for? ;-)

That's a way of seeing it, yes.  Handing your problems over to a single 
entity in exchange of money and freedom.

 > Why would all copies of an MIT-licensed
> source be more likely to disappear than all copies of a GPL-licensed 
> source?

Good question!  Let me consult the horoscope...

>> And if you were one of the contributors of code and patches to that 
>> software and later realizes Microsoft or Adobe using it in their 
>> closed products without any acknowledgement (let alone royalties) and 
>> pissing and laughing on your grave, you are screwed too.
> 
> Unless that's what you want. Unless you're more interested in giving the 
> world good software than getting strokes from your peeps.

No one is that altruist, but I'm sure you didn't really mean it.  GPLed 
software provides a good framework for *continued* sharing and bettering 
of code and that is the main reason why people use it.  Sharing is 
important because workload and bug fixing is divided by many interested 
parties.  The GPL also ensures that no one will suddenly stop 
contributing code for fear that the code is too damn good and could stop 
in a commercial leecher product without further notice.

>> The GPL protects the code from gettting trapped into a closed product 
>> and also the rights of the original developers to it.
> 
> The MIT license doesn't prevent you from having an open project no 
> matter what someone else may do to it. Did FreeBSD disappear when MS 
> used the TCP stack from it?

Would open-source unGPLed Linux die if Microsoft and their 99% market 
share would canibalize it as a basis for a better product?  You betcha!

>> It's more restrictive because it must make sure code remains free to 
>> use and modify.
> 
> So does the MIT license. The difference is the GPL makes sure someone 
> *else's* code remains free to use and modify.

Someone *else's* code wouldn't exist in the first place without the 
original GPLed code.  That's what a modification means.

> So the GPL does nothing to ensure that open code remains open. All it 
> does is ensure that if I feel like giving away my code, you can't make a 
> profit on your own work if it's related to mine.

The GPL isn't about profits or money, it's about freedom.  AFAIK, 
companies make money off of GPLed code and all they need to do is 
provide the source for any modifications.

> And the new stuff about forcing even plug-in authors to GPL-license 
> their code when it isn't a modification of the GPL'ed code is clearly 
> not even trying to keep you from "taking advantage" of my free code.

gcc plugins are not flash players.  gcc is doing the heavy work and they 
are using it to provide extra useful functionality.  A gcc plugin would 
not be a standalone app.

Post a reply to this message