>
> Take for example a ray tracing software. Say, I write my own raytracing 
> software
> from scratch - except for the PNG library, which I don't bother to code 
> all by
> myself. As far as my own code goes, I'd be happily willing to place it in 
> the
> public domain. I cannot, however, because I need to GPL it for the sake of 
> the
> PNG lib.
>
> Now someone else needs a raytracer that outputs HDR. He doesn't really 
> care
> about PNG, but he takes that raytracing software I wrote (including the 
> PNG lib
> I didn't write), and replaces the PNG code with HDR code written by 
> himself from
> scratch. Let's for argument's sake assume that he, too, is perfectly fine 
> with
> his work to be placed in the PD.
>
> So the product contains work from me, perfectly willing to place it in the
> public domain, and work from that other guy, who added the HDR code, and 
> also
> perfectly willing to PD it. Nothing left of the PNG code which forced me 
> to GPL
> the software.
>
> Nothing left? Hm... I had to release my code under the GPL. So if that 
> other guy
> wants to distribute his software, he has to GPL it, too.
>
> THAT is what I consider nonsense and non-freedom: We have a piece of 
> software
> comprised solely of code contributed by people willing to place it in the 
> PD -
> but an author of some piece of code that isn't even in there gets his will
> under which license the software is distributed. Everyone could do 
> anything
> with our work as they please - if it wasn't for the virulent nature of the 
> GPL.
>
>
> Granted, this might not be the typical case. But it does illustrate the
> underlying problem: Even if some software is released under the GPL, this 
> may
> not be in line with code authors' intentions. It may actually be that 
> *all*
> people that have contributed to the final version would be perfectly fine 
> with
> a totally different license scheme - and yet the FSF has their say in it.
>

I think you're seriously mixing up Copyright and Licensing in this example.

IANAL, but my understanding is that you retain copyright to your own work 
when you release it under GPL V3, even when it is combined with other 
elements licensed under GPL V3. You are perfectly entitled to also release 
your own work (or work to which you hold sole copyright) as part of other 
distributions under a different free or commercial license of your choosing. 
You can also contact the copyright holder of other GPL works and seek a 
separate license from them for the redistribution of their work under other 
free or commercial licenses.

For the most part GPL doesn't remove your rights, as copyright holder, to do 
what you want with your work, rather it protects them. The main exception 
being that you obviously can't issue someone else with an 'exclusive' 
license to something you've already licensed in perpetuity under GPL.

> From what I see, it's not a moral stance, but a religious one, and that 
> makes me
> very uneasy about the FSF and GPL.

I see it more as an inevitable response to some vicious and sustained 
attacks by a small number of huge, disreputable commercial interests with 
very large and well funded legal teams against altruistic individuals and 
groups without the necessary financial backing to fight back. Over the years 
I've seen huge bodies of work, contributed freely for the benefit of 
everyone, wiped away or enveloped by commercial or legal trickery. It's sad 
that, having found that the open source community has evolved mechanisms to 
combat their legal departments, there now seems to be an intensifying focus 
on campaigns to confuse, discredit and divide the open source community.

Nevertheless. My experience is that legitimate commercial development has 
continued to evolve alongside open source development, with each benefiting 
greatly from the other. I've worked in various large organisations over the 
years that have both benefitted from and contributed to open source software 
and I don't really see that changing anytime soon. Nor, unfortunately, do I 
see the big legal battles stopping anytime soon.

Regards,
Chris B.

Post a reply to this message