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

Jim Henderson wrote:
> The one who wrote the code that you are modifying and then distributing.
> If I want to reuse his code, I have to respect his wishes (and his rights 
> as the original author) about how it be distributed.

That's the trick, tho. The FSF is looking for technological mechanisms to 
force you to GPL the code that you wrote entirely from scratch yourself 
without modifying or incorporating any other GPL code. They're not 
respecting my wishes about how I want to distribute *my* original code, and 
since the GPL cannot be made to apply to gcc plug-ins, they need to find 
some mechanism other than copyright to keep me from being able to distribute 
it.  That's exactly what people think is over the top.

-- 
   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:498115f8$1@news.povray.org...
> 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.

No it doesn't. You can pick any license you want, so long as you agree and
abide to the terms of the license in question. That's how *any* licensing
scheme works.

> The GPL
> prevents you from linking code with a different license to GPLed code.

That *is* against the stipulation of the license. So it's not preventing
anybody who agrees to the terms of the license. If you wish to use GPL code
with non-GPL code, you are *not* agreeing to the terms of the GPL license,
so of course it's not going to apply to you.

> The MIT license doesn't.

MIT license doesn't protect the rights of the authour because it prevents
him from not distributing the license with his software. See how absurd that
sounds?

Yes, MIT license is less restrictive as to what recipients can do, but
that's the reason there are so many licenses. Authors get to pick to which
licensing terms they agree.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: iso-8859-1, 15 lines --]

> 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.

  I like how GPL fanboys resort to argue about semantics when their "you
can use it in any way you want" is proven wrong. Suddenly the term "use"
is limited to certain uses, not all of them. Thus, of course, this is a
self-contained truth: "GPL code can be used for anything you want, when
we define 'use' appropriately."

>  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?

  I didn't say the fact is irritating.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> But it seriously limits the use for open source software in commercial 
> products.

  GPL doesn't only limit the use of GPL'd software in commercial products,
it limits its use in *all* products which are not GPL, including open source
projects. Thus it's hugely restrictive.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 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.

Just citing the FSF's view of things.

Post a reply to this message

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

Sure, you may continue to use your own authored code...

..... so can a free software developer whose code has been assimilated by one of
those Evil Bad Greedy Companies That Want To Steal Your Code: He's still free
to use his own code any way he likes...

So again, the difference between big companies and the FSF is marginal here as I
see it, being mainly that companies typically don't *believe* to be standing on
higher moral grounds. Aside from that, a great lot of traits the FSF criticizes
about companies can be seen in the FSF just as well, if one dares to take a
closer look instead of just blindly swimming with the mass.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> No it doesn't. You can pick any license you want, so long as you agree and
> abide to the terms of the license in question.

OK. From this, I'm going to assume from this that you didn't actually read 
the article posted in the OP's message. Thanks for playing.

>> The GPL
>> prevents you from linking code with a different license to GPLed code.
> 
> That *is* against the stipulation of the license. So it's not preventing
> anybody who agrees to the terms of the license.

Well, yeah. "Everyone is free."  "What about the slaves?"  "Well, the 
constitution says they're not people, so they're free too. Free to be slaves."

> Yes, MIT license is less restrictive as to what recipients can do,

Yay!  Wow, you do speak English after all!

-- 
   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