"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.49768f4f390cc5e3a8b1e7e60@news.povray.org...
> "Chris B" <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> .... this may become quite a pain.

Hmm! I think anytime you get into the complex issues of copyright and 
licensing you'd better be ready to endure pain :-)

Nevertheless, as the license issuer, the GPL protects your rights in a way 
that allows you considerable freedom for the future. For speed and economy 
you may choose to base your work on GPL libraries for your first release. If 
your application looks like a winner you may then investigate alternative 
licensing for those libraries or invest in replacement libraries under a 
commercial license. Sure, people will still be able to run your old code and 
derivative works distributed by others under their existing GPL license, but 
many may also choose to upgrade to your V2 code with whichever license you 
have chosen for it.

The aggressiveness of those advocating GPL is to try and protect you. Not to 
try and swindle you out of your own code (that role was already taken). 
Remember, you are not bound by the terms of use in the license that you 
issue. You have obligations as the license issuer, not as the recipient of 
the license.

>
>> 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.
>
> Nay. It may have started that way, but from what I see now, it has gone
> overboard.
>
> For the cause of protecting free software developers' rights against 
> commercial
> piracy, in the case of libraries I see no valid reason to require that 
> *all*
> parts of commercial software must be open sourced if they use that 
> library -
> except for "political" purposes.

Legally it's not piracy because big business mostly has the law on its side. 
Most of the copyright, licensing and piracy laws have been crafted by those 
sponsored by major commercial interests and forced into law by well-paid 
government lobyists. GPL and LGPL were crafted to try and use those very 
same laws to counter the lack of representation for the individual and for 
the open source community in those laws.

> If the goal is to defend against commercial products "wrapping" the 
> library,
> with the intention of hiding from their users the fact that the same
> functionality is available for free, then it will perfectly suffice to 
> require
> that credit is given in a sufficiently prominent place, and source code of 
> the
> *library* is provided for free on demand.

An example may serve here to illustrate:

Imagine you spend years on an ingenious open source project that develops 
some clever and complex algorithms and you don't give it the protection that 
the GPL affords. You're about to add a cool front-end when someone else 
embeds your code, adds their own commercial front-end and patents the notion 
of using your code through a GUI front-end. Your years of altruistic 
development have now been effectively blocked by someone who knocked up a 
quick and dirty 'wrapper' to your code and you can't even develop your own 
front-end without paying them royalties for their genious idea of using your 
software through a front-end. Their patent lasts for the rest of your life.

Or, an example from the other side of the coin:

Imagine you write an application to manipulate a mesh that you found with an 
open license which is not GPL or some other comparable license that has some 
tested legal foundation. You sell it at $5 a shot for a couple of years 
before a lawyer buys the company that released the mesh. He challenges and 
overturns the license and then sues you for loss of earnings claiming the 
mesh alone to be worth $500 a copy. You now have the choice of  A) 
negotiating to see if he'd be kind enough to take the $20K you'd earned and 
the rights to the software you wrote to get off your back or  B) hoping that 
someone who likes you dies leaving you $2M plus legal expenses in the next 
few days.

> Or, alternatively, it should suffice
> to disallow distribution of the library along with the product - but even
> dynamic linkage with a library that needs to be obtained separately is an
> option ruled out by the GPL.

I've watched the different clauses in the GPL build up over the years and 
the FSF has been careful to explain why each clause has had to be introduced 
to counter a new attack. I believe the clause you refer to was in response 
to organisations that burned two CD's and said that the library and code 
were therefore distributed 'separately', but you'd have to check back on the 
FSF site to be sure.

>> 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.
>
> I can assure you that I have not been the target of any such campaign (or 
> if I
> was, I didn't bother to listen to them).

:-) Sorry! I wasn't accusing you personally. The hired public relations 
hacks tend to just sow seeds of doubt and typically don't argue the case 
themselves. Their style is more to ask questions rather than make any actual 
statements for which their clients could be held in any way accountable.

> I thought quite favorably about the
> ideals of free software - until I read some articles on the FSF's internet
> site.
>
> They're at war. And they're willing to sacrifice anything else for it. 
> They're
> no longer just fighting against big strong sneaky companies - they're 
> fighting
> against everyone who in all honesty tries to get monetary compensation for
> their contribution to software. Unless it is designed specifically for a 
> single
> customer, but on these people the GPL will still backfire: They may sell 
> their
> work to the company, but they must allow the company to re-distribute any 
> part
> thereof to anyone they like.

I'm not aware of the precise text you're referring to, but I'm sure you're 
right that some people in the open source community use excessively colorful 
language that tends to inflame. Many of these people though are battle 
weary, having won small victories in the past only to have those victories 
undermined by lobbyists who have been sneaking new and more dastardly rules 
by the back door through the legislature on the quiet. I suspect it's also 
true that the less obsessive personalities on both sides of the argument 
tend to drop out as the bitterness deepens.

> That's nothing I took from Microsoft campaigns or whatever.

I would think not. Microsoft's public face is usually very benevolent 
towards the open source community. Particularly now that Mr Gates is getting 
older and is perhaps giving more thought to how his name will be written 
into the history books.

> I do see a sense in the LGPL. I also do see a sense in the fight against
> software patents (I think *any* patent is crap - if I happen to make the 
> same
> invention as someone else, without me knowing about that, then why should 
> I not
> be entitled to use the idea?).

I think the patent system is in need of serious review. It was developed to 
protect the intellectual capital of the small number of innovative 
individuals and companies that existed in the past. The last 50 years has 
seen a population explosion and a communications explosion that makes many 
of the patent restrictions non-sensical.  There are companies that lodge 
literally millions of patents each year with no intention of developing or 
even exploring those technologies. They simply keep their patents on file so 
that they can demand royalties from others who invent anything commercially 
viable and slightly similar in the future.

> But the GPL is not a legal instrument but a
> political paper, and I don't favor the way it is heading. And the zeal 
> with
> which it is promoted makes me uneasy.

It's important to distinguish between the GPL, which is a licensing 
agreement, and the expression of views by those promoting it (even if the 
views are from the people currently dedicated to maintaining and promoting 
the foundation). The license has evolved over many years to respond to legal 
challenges against your rights to write and distribute your own work. Each 
iteration of the license has been discussed at considerable length before 
being released and is the result of diligent and carefully thought-through 
arguments (even when universal agreement over clauses has not been 
possible). The reasons behind each decision affecting the evolution of the 
license have been disclosed and those reasons are still available for anyone 
to read.

I don't believe that the FSF is just another evil empire waiting in the 
wings.

Regards,
Chris B.

Post a reply to this message