"Chris B" <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
> 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.

That is true, but...

> 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.

.... this may become quite a pain.


> 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.

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. 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.


> 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). 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.

That's nothing I took from Microsoft campaigns or whatever. That's what I took
from their own words.


> 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.

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?). 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.

Post a reply to this message