Tim Cook wrote:

> Play our way or not at all.
> 

And that is why I'm very careful about the source of code for my 
projects. I don't want to be forcefully bound to releasing source code, 
even if I'm considering sharing the source any way.

(Like I've ever released a project. Oh, yeah .. my game.. That was about 
it.)

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez escreveu:
> I'm not against GPL (I contribute to a LGPL project regularly and my own
> projects are GPL when and if they get out of my computer). I'm against
> DRM-like measures in GNU software.

Those "DRM-like measures" don't take away the freedoms of anyone anymore 
than current GPL:  people wanting it for proprietary projects without 
source code sharing are still out, as they've always been.

These plugins for GCC are not like plugins for Firefox.  Despite both in 
a sense providing extended functionality for the open-source projects, a 
Flash player depends entirely on Flash content on the web, not on 
specific Firefox resources, while a plugin for gcc would be eager to use 
data, structures and functions provided by the core compiler.  It's 
really just code that should be in the compiler that was outsourced, so 
it must be GPL too.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:17:59 -0200, nemesis wrote:

> people wanting it for proprietary projects without source code sharing
> are still out, as they've always been.

As I understand it, that's not strictly true.  If you don't distribute 
your modified program, you're not obligated to submit your changes 
upstream or to distribute your modified code.  Sharing the code becomes a 
requirement only if you distribute your modified version of the program.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Those "DRM-like measures" don't take away the freedoms of anyone anymore 
> than current GPL:  people wanting it for proprietary projects without 
> source code sharing are still out, as they've always been.

Any additional condition on something takes away more freedom.  Even if it 
expands options, it's still reducing *freedom*, in the raw chaos sense.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

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

  There's a contradiction in there.

  If you *have to* comply to something before you can distribute, that
nullifies the claim that you are free to use it in *any way* you want.

  GPL is, in fact, rather restrictive. For example, if I make a project
under, let's say, the MIT license, I have to make extra sure that I don't
include *any* GPL'd code in it because that would be againt the GPL license.

  If I wanted to use the GPL'd code, I would have to change from the MIT
license to the GPL license, which is more restrictive.

  Just the fact that you can include MIT-licensed code in a GPL-licensed
program but not the other way around tells a lot about which license is
more "free".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> It's just that through that license
> you promote and allow your licensed work to be used and modified by others, as
> long as they don't try to pull a smarty and deny others that same right.

  GPL goes beyond that. It prohibits you from using GPL'd code in a program
under some other license, even if that other license would be as free as
(or even more free than) GPL. Just because it's *not* GPL is enough for it
to be inadmissible, regardless of what kind of license it would be.

  This makes GPL incompatible with all other licenses. This is rather
restricting.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Those "DRM-like measures" don't take away the freedoms of anyone 
>> anymore than current GPL:  people wanting it for proprietary projects 
>> without source code sharing are still out, as they've always been.
> 
> Any additional condition on something takes away more freedom.

It's taking away *your* freedom to give more freedom to someone else. Just 
like every freedom 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

nemesis wrote:
> Yes, the GPL is fully copyright-based.  It's not public domain and you own the
> rights to your contribution throughout.  It's just that through that license
> you promote and allow your licensed work to be used and modified by others, as
> long as they don't try to pull a smarty and deny others that same right.

Except we're talking about plug-ins here, which by their very definition are 
an independent part of the program. Which is to say, FSF wouldn't be talking 
about technical ways of enforcing plug-in authors to write GPLed plug-ins if 
there was a legal reason the GPL extended to the plug-ins. They're trying to
make it impossible to distribute your own completely independent code under
a license less restrictive (or more) than the GPL, by making the compiler 
not load the plug-in unless the plug-in is GPLed.

I don't see this as very different from TiVo giving away the program but not 
the encryption keys that make it work on their own hardware. TiVo wanted to 
sell you the hardware and have you use TiVo's software on it. If you built 
your own hardware, you could also use TiVo's software on it. FSF got freaked 
they couldn't run their own software on TiVo's hardware. Now they're getting 
freaked that you *can* run proprietary plug-ins on GPLed compilers. Same 
thing, really.

-- 
   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 escreveu:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:17:59 -0200, nemesis wrote:
> 
>> people wanting it for proprietary projects without source code sharing
>> are still out, as they've always been.
> 
> As I understand it, that's not strictly true.  If you don't distribute 
> your modified program, you're not obligated to submit your changes 
> upstream or to distribute your modified code.  Sharing the code becomes a 
> requirement only if you distribute your modified version of the program.

Yes, I believe I stated that somewhere in this thread before.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:03:33 -0200, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson escreveu:
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:17:59 -0200, nemesis wrote:
>> 
>>> people wanting it for proprietary projects without source code sharing
>>> are still out, as they've always been.
>> 
>> As I understand it, that's not strictly true.  If you don't distribute
>> your modified program, you're not obligated to submit your changes
>> upstream or to distribute your modified code.  Sharing the code becomes
>> a requirement only if you distribute your modified version of the
>> program.
> 
> Yes, I believe I stated that somewhere in this thread before.

Quite possibly, I haven't read all the messages in-depth. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message