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

But if there's a free version, and a for-fee version, and people willingly 
pay for the for-fee version, it must be of sufficient benefit, yes?

>> 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...

OK. So you have no real answer as to how your disaster scenario might 
actually occur.

>> 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, 

Oh. Sorry. No, nobody ever gives money away anonymously either, I guess.

> GPLed 
> software provides a good framework for *continued* sharing and bettering 
> of code and that is the main reason why people use it. 

That's debatable. OK, it provides a good framework unquestionably. Whether 
it provides a better framework for helping more people get value out of work 
is another question.

> 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.

Some people don't really worry that someone else is using their code.

> 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!

I'm not sure why you think that.

>>> 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.

Yes? So?  I think you've missed the point I'm trying to make.

>> 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.

No, because they can't charge money for the modifications they make.

The only way you can charge money for it is by making a large mess that's so 
hard to debug that other people will come to you and pay you to fix bugs.

>> 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.

Neither is a firefox extension. Neither is a Windows device driver. Yet 
surprisingly there are oodles of both, many of which aren't GPLed. How many 
FSF people complained that Windows device drivers need to be signed?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message