Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   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?

You *can use* GPLed software in any way you want, including packaging together
with your closed software.  The GPL clauses only take effect in the case of
modification *and* release of modified GPLed software, not use.  Usage of GPLed
software is irrestrict to anyone to do as they see fit, including sell it
without further notice to the original developers.

What's irritating in this fact?

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> GPL neither protects, nor restricts the rights of anyone using any other
> license.

It does so by preventing you from using a different license. The GPL 
prevents you from linking code with a different license to GPLed code. The 
MIT license doesn't.

If you can't see that, then I'm not sure what the problem is.

> Maybe so, but that's irrelevant. The author can pick any license that he
> wants. 

Unless he's authoring a plug-in for GCC.

-- 
   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:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>>   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?
> 
> You *can use* GPLed software in any way you want, including packaging together
> with your closed software.  The GPL clauses only take effect in the case of
> modification *and* release of modified GPLed software, not use.

That's exactly what the /. article was talking about, tho. The intention is 
apparently to make it impossible to write a closed-source piece of software 
that interoperates with GCC without modifying GCC.  I.e., they're trying to 
prevent the author of plug-ins from distributing closed-source plug-ins that 
work with an unmodified gcc, in order to force the GPL onto those plug-ins.

See the subject line? Remember where we started?

-- 
   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

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> 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're wrong.  GPL is a copyright-based license -- it absolutely depends on
copyright law to enforce its terms.  And you are the copyright owner to your
software.  You may dual license as well and this was the business model of
MySQL, at least until being acquired by Sun.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "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? 

So you said "The GPL only affects those who modify the code." This is 
factually wrong, as evidenced by my example.

So that's the freedom that the GPL takes away from the user of the MIT 
license.  Since you asked.

And if I wanted to take some code licensed with the GPL and some code 
licensed with something more restrictive and combine the two, I couldn't.



> It's not your god given right to be able to use MIT license.

I'm not sure where I said it was.

I said the GPL restricts one person's freedom in return for another's, while 
some other licenses don't. You act like this isn't true, so I'm trying to 
explain it. Now that I realize that you understand this is true and just 
don't want to phrase it that way because then it wouldn't sound "free!" then 
I'll stop discussing it.

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

But the license does.

-- 
   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

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> 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...?
>
> 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.

I see your point.  But I'd like to point out that your scenario of a GPL-only
environment is as ludicrous as a closed-source-only or BSD-only.  Closed
software will not die, despite highly successful free software projects and any
FSF advances.  There are projects which simply make no sense as shared
open-source projects.

That said, if you don't like GPL and its restrictions, it's just a matter of
choosing another source of well-maintained, bug-free software under a more
leech-friendly license.  Or create one your own!  I'm sure there are plenty of
anti-FSF developers out there ready to help you in your endeauvour.  and
benefit from it too... ;)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> So you said "The GPL only affects those who modify the code." This is
> factually wrong, as evidenced by my example.

Now I see your point.  However, a modification is considered here not simply the
act of taking the original code and messing with it.  A work derived from an
unmodified source is also a modification, "using" it to integrate its features
as base for a larger work.  That, I guess, is the crux of the matter with gcc
plugins.

It's a matter of perspective, of course.  They could very well allow for non-GPL
closed-source software to be plugins for gcc, but chose not to.  It's their
software and their terms.  The GPL doesn't require it and the GPL seems to be
living still in the older world of static linkage, but is slowly adapting to
new forms of composing software...

Of course, anyone courageous enough to fork gcc should stand right.  But I guess
most of these anti-FSF folks are more busy paying Microsoft for Visual Studio
and relegate gcc to geeky hobby.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> That, I guess, is the crux of the matter with gcc plugins.

No it's not. Why would that be the crux with gcc plug-ins and not with 
applications that run on top of Linux?  Couldn't Linux just as easily use 
the same sorts of techniques they're talking about for applications?

Sure. Because there's lots of places using GCC outside of Linux, and few 
people who will be writing plug-ins for it. But there are few places using 
Linux, and they want lots of people writing closed applications for it.

It's commercial, but instead of you giving them money, they want you to give 
them your code. We solved the barter problem several thousand years ago with 
the invention of currency.

> It's a matter of perspective, of course.  They could very well allow for non-GPL
> closed-source software to be plugins for gcc, but chose not to.  It's their
> software and their terms.  

Certainly. They're specifically trying to come up with a mechanism *not* 
based on copyright to restrict the authoring of code that implements gcc 
plug-ins, because the GPL cannot be made to apply, since plug-ins don't 
necessarily incorporate any copyrighted code.

> Of course, anyone courageous enough to fork gcc should stand right.  But I guess
> most of these anti-FSF folks are more busy paying Microsoft for Visual Studio
> and relegate gcc to geeky hobby.

Just so you know, such statements make you sound like you're saying "I have 
no actual argument, so I'll start with the ad homeniem attacks and hope you 
hate microsoft as much as I do so you agree unthinkingly."

-- 
   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

On 1/28/2009 2:39 AM, nemesis wrote:
> Chambers<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom>  wrote:
>> The FSF is quite draconian in their policies.  In fact, the latest
>> efforts seem to be just as DRM infected as any closed system.
>
> Except freedoms are preserved rather than taken away.  You're still free to use
> it in *any way* you want.  And if you want to modify it for yourself or your
> organization.  You just have to comply to the GPL way if you later want to ship
> that modified work, in which case the GPL is enforced so that you don't deny
> others the same rights the GPL offered you.  Fair enough.

But it seriously limits the use for open source software in commercial 
products.  In that sense, instead of having an egalitarian, "best 
software wins" model, you have two[1] choices:

1) Use *all* closed-source software, and pay for everything,
2) Use *all* GPL software, and accept that most is crap.

Why can't we have open- and closed- source programs sitting side by side?

The FSF tweaked me when they stopped supporting the LGPL (even renaming 
it from the "Library GPL" to the "Lesser GPL").  LGPL was the single 
greatest achievement in licensing I've ever encountered[2] (it allowed 
open source libraries to be used by competitive companies), but the FSF 
doesn't think that's appropriate.  They're an "all or nothing" bunch, 
and have been pushing against the LGPL almost as long as its been around.

[1] Yes, I know I'm simplifying.

[2] The original GPL was really just about protecting rights that 
everybody already knew you had - "You can't do such and such with my 
software!" - while the LGPL was a successful hybrid of two distinct 
mindsets, allowing both open- and closed- source code to be used in the 
same project.

...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

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

No, really.  Name some open source projects that closed source software 
companies shut down and are no longer available.  I'm interested in hearing 
it.  I hear this often, but I don't think I've ever seen it happen.

I've seen open source projects suck the life out of commercial ventures, and 
I've seen commercial ventures suck the life out of other commercial 
ventures, but I've never seen an original open source project destroyed by 
competition from a closed-source for-fee program. (Patents and other IP 
laws, maybe, but not competition.)

-- 
   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