 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New escreveu:
>> Your freedom to not be punched in the nose restricts my freedom to
>> punch you in the nose.
>
> I feel that freedom is in risk right now. ;)
Not at all.
>> Then what freedom does it add to the author to force his plug-in to be
>> open source and licensed under the GPL?
>
> The freedom to use the gcc infrastructure for the benefit of his plugin.
No. He could use the gcc infrastructure for his plug-in regardless of how he
licenses his plug-in. He could also use the gcc infrastructure for the
benefit of his plug-in were gcc licensed with MIT licensing.
In other words, you're taking the conclusion ("the plug-in is licensed with
GPL") and assuming it's a prerequisite. That's called "begging the question."
My question is, what benefit does it bestow upon the plug-in author to
*require* a GPL license of the plug-in? If I want to release my plug-in in
object only, how does it benefit *me* (or *you*) to say "your only choice is
GPL or not write it at all." Why is it a benefit to people who would want
to use my plug-in for me to not write it because it would cost me too much?
>> How does that benefit anyone who wants to use the plug-in without
>> modification?
>
> The GPL allows for unrestricted *use*, for any means.
Right. That's my point. Why would GCC require a plug-in author to give it a
particular license? It wouldn't be any different from the Linux kernel
enforcing only running apps that were GPLed.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote in message
> news:4980a265$1@news.povray.org...
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>>>> This makes GPL incompatible with all other licenses. This is rather
>>>> restricting.
>
>>> But protective of the rights of the original author, which is the
>>> underlying goal.
>
>> Which original author? The one giving away the code with more
> restrictions,
>> or the one giving away the code with fewer restrictions?
>
> Rights of the author who released his code under GPL of course. Only in the
> bizzaro world might it make sense to assume GPL would offer protection to
> authors who don't (!?) use it.
So you're agreeing. The GPL protects the freedoms of the author using the
GPL at the expense of the freedoms of the author using the MIT license. And
the MIT license restricts users less in what they can do with the code.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:22:27 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> This makes GPL incompatible with all other licenses. This is rather
>>>> restricting.
>>> But protective of the rights of the original author, which is the
>>> underlying goal.
>> Which original author? The one giving away the code with more
>> restrictions, or the one giving away the code with fewer restrictions?
>
> The one who wrote the code that you are modifying and then distributing.
What makes you think I'm modifying the GPL code?
If I include libjpg without modifying it at all, I can no longer use the MIT
license on my code, even if my code is orders of magnitude larger and more
valuable. This forces me, while building something large that I need to get
paid for, to rewrite code that's already tested and works well and is
bug-free and safe. Hence, GPL code leads to bugs in non-GPL code.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> 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.
If you release something under the MIT license, you are saying that
people can use the code in *any way* they want, including using it in
closed-source software. That's what makes the MIT license truely free.
If someone then goes and uses the code in a closed-source software, then
what is it there to be pissed off about? You granted permission to do
exactly that.
> The GPL protects the code from gettting trapped into a closed product
> and also the rights of the original developers to it.
By not being as free as it advertises to be.
> It's more restrictive because it must make sure code remains free to use
> and modify. I take it over any permissive license anyday.
It's in fact so restrictive that it becomes useless in many cases.
The GPL license is basically completely incompatible with everything
else. If you are in a project using any other license, you have to make
extra sure you don't use *any* GPL'd code anywhere. This can be a real
burden sometimes.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > This makes GPL incompatible with all other licenses. This is rather
> > restricting.
> But protective of the rights of the original author, which is the
> underlying goal.
There are other licenses which protect the rights of the original author
equally well but are not so restrictive about which other licenses they
may be combined with.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmm... didn't I mention not too long ago that the FSF is going a bit overboard?
(And I hadn't even heard of this one then.)
Good to know I'm not the only retard who thinks this way...
Anyway, introducing technical barriers in GPL'ed code is a bit nonsensical:
Everyone can create a version of it with these checks "amputated". Everyone
actually explicitly has a to do so.
What's next? Trying to put this technical barrier under cover of laws
prohibiting or restricting circumvention?
What I see convinces me even more that the FSF's goal is to *force* all software
authors to give away their software for free, because for some weird reason they
think there is a higher moral right to free software.
I must correct myself: This is not so much a "political" thing, as I had claimed
earlier, but a "religious" one.
All your codebase are belong to us.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka escreveu:
> All your codebase are belong to us.
Only codebases based on GPLed software. You have the ultimate freedom
of not using it as well.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp escreveu:
> > This makes GPL incompatible with all other licenses. This is rather
> > restricting.
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
> Apache and Boost are among them.
Their definition of "compatible" is that you can re-license the other
code to be under the GPL. In other words, you can use non-GPL code in a
GPL program, and publish the entire program under the GPL, effectively
changing the license of the original non-GPL code to GPL.
What you can't do is take GPL code and use it in a project which uses
a non-GPL license.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escreveu:
> By not being as free as it advertises to be.
I see it like as in: "so free that won't let otherwise"
> It's in fact so restrictive that it becomes useless in many cases.
If it's so restrictive and so useless, why are you even getting into an
argument about it rather than getting over the stupid damned thing?
Surely there's value there that fuels the many flames like this.
Fact is people want to use it in their closed projects and not give away
anything, that's why they complain so much about GPL software rather
than pull themselves together and use MIT/BSD software.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
