"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

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:21:04 -0500, Warp wrote:

> 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.

But protective of the rights of the original author, which is the 
underlying goal.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> 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.

The GPL is not there to take away freedom to use and modify the software 
from anyone.  It's stated like it is exactly *to ensure* no one is 
allowed to take away such freedom.  It does that by requiring you to 
share the source for the modifications and put it under the GPL as well 
if you release the modified software.  So yes, it is a viral license in 
this sense.  But it's not like an HIV virus, more like a retrovirus 
carrying vaccines into an ill organism... :)

If you want a completely permissive and unrestricted license where 
anyone can use the code for any purpose, even bettering upon it and not 
disclosing the modifications and releasing it under some big hype 
machine until the original open-source project/code looses all interest 
to most people, then BSD or public domain is the way to go.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> The GPL is not there to take away freedom to use and modify the software 
> from anyone.  

I didn't say it did.

> It's stated like it is exactly *to ensure* no one is 
> allowed to take away such freedom.

I didn't say it wasn't.

I said it takes freedoms away from one person to give more freedoms to other 
people, just like every freedom does. Your freedom to not be punched in the 
nose restricts my freedom to punch you in the nose.

Then what freedom does it add to the author to force his plug-in to be open 
source and licensed under the GPL?   How does that benefit anyone who wants 
to use the plug-in without modification?

-- 
   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