Darren New escreveu:
> 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.

Oh, come on!  If you stopped whinning about sucky and evil GPL software 
and pulled yourself together to write down replacement code for said 
libs, you'd have by now a pretty large collection of good non-GPL 
software under your belt.  After all, they are pretty trivial and simple 
against your magnum opus.

> Hence, GPL code leads to bugs in non-GPL 
> code.

You're complaining that it's Microsoft's fault that device drivers are 
buggy and crash Windows.

Post a reply to this message

Warp escreveu:
>   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.

And what are you waiting to use them?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.

  Btw, libjpeg is not GPL.

  (And another btw: I have no idea what you are talking about above.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >   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? 

  Uh? I don't understand.

  If I think that it's restrictive and useless, I should not express that
opinion? I really can't see the logical causality here.

> Surely there's value there that fuels the many flames like this.

  I fail to see any causality here either. The only reason why I argue
so vocally against the GPL must be that the GPL is valuable? How does
that make any sense?

  Could the reason why I argue against the GPL is that fanboys advocating
it as something it's not ("you can use it in *any way* you want") are
irritating? No, that cannot be the reason. The reason must be that I think
GPL is valuable, which is why I oppose it so much. Yeah, that makes so much
sense.

> 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.

  Yes. Everybody is trying to rip off GPL code for their selfish desires,
which is why the only reason why people oppose the GPL.

  This, of course, includes people who would want to use some other
open source licenses which are even less restrictive than the GPL.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp escreveu:
> >   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.

> And what are you waiting to use them?

  Uh? Exactly what are you arguing here? I don't really get it.

  It almost sounds like you were saying that I *am* using the GPL even
though I oppose it so much. Or something. I don't really understand what
is it that you are saying.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.

Ooooh - you're one of the bad guys who try to steal free software, like libjpg!
Don't you know that this piece of free software is only free as in "freedom of
speach", and not as in "free for the taking"? Noooo, you gotta pay a price for
that free library you intend to use!

How much?

Ooooh, nothing of particular value... just give us all rights to your complete
application, including all other libraries it might be using - including the
right to use it to acquire other software the same way as well - that'll be
enough to settle the bill...

You know, after all, we're fighting for a good cause, against those evil
companies that want to steal your software from you...

..... and of course, don't trust the MIT followers, because, you know, they're
not
your friends, they can't protect you and all... *we're* your friends,
remember...


Heck, I wish someone would come up with a free software license expressively
*forbidding* derivative works' license conditions to require any published
derivatives of the derivative to be released completely as open source.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Oh, come on!  If you stopped whinning about sucky and evil GPL software
> and pulled yourself together to write down replacement code for said
> libs, you'd have by now a pretty large collection of good non-GPL
> software under your belt.  After all, they are pretty trivial and simple
> against your magnum opus.

Isn't that just the same point the FSF is claiming about commercial software,
just with a different "sign bit"?

The bad companies will assimilate your free software project until, with their
market power, they have "dried out" your project, so it only lives on as part
of their closed, commercial code - and other similar free projects likewise, so
the only alternatives left out there will be commercial products.

What's the difference here to a bad FSF that will assimilate *my* free software
project until, with *their* social power, they have "dried out" *my* project,
so it only lives on under *their* GPL'ed, not-for-commercial license - and
other similar free projects likewise, so the only alternatives left out there
will be GPL'ed products...?

Except that "FSF is ungood" would be a contradiction in itself, of couse...


I see people kind of measuring the one by the inches and the other by the
centimeters here, while basically it's the same: Influential organizations
trying to force their will on as much software as possible.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> The bad companies will assimilate your free software project until, with their
> market power, they have "dried out" your project,

Name two.

-- 
   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

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4980c287$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 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

So far, I do agree.

> at the expense of the freedoms of the author using the MIT license.

This part is absolute nonsense. It's the MIT license that protects the right
of the author that is using the MIT license. Just like it's GPL license
that's protecting the rights of the author using the GPL license.

GPL neither protects, nor restricts the rights of anyone using any other
license. It's absurd to claim something like that, so I don't understand "at
the expense" part.

> And  the MIT license restricts users less in what they can do with the
code.

Maybe so, but that's irrelevant. The author can pick any license that he
wants. If the author wishes least restrictions upon the users, he won't pick
MIT either but release his code to public domain.

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4980c417$1@news.povray.org...

> If I include libjpg without modifying it at all, I can no longer use the
MIT
> license on my code,

So what? It's not your god given right to be able to use MIT license.

It's your option, however, to not use libjpg, if you don't agree to the
license.

> even if my code is orders of magnitude larger and more
> valuable.

That's neither here nor there. People don't have a right to code that's less
valuable than theirs.

> 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.

That's some convoluted thinking. Libjpg is an option. You can take it or
leave it. Its existance doesn't force anything on you.

Post a reply to this message