>
> 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

"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

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

I wouldn't put it any better. :)

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Either you will work for a big company to adapt & extend existing software to
> their needs (which then *may* happen to be released to the public for free as a
> spin-off), or you will develop software as a hobby just for fun. No in-between
> anymore.
>
> No room for people writing comparatively small pieces of software for fun *and*
> making a living on it.

Indeed.  "No pain, no gain" should be the tag line of every job. ;P

> Can you imagine anyone paying for shareware if it is not only *technically*
> possible to circumvent trial periods and registration code checks (because the
> source code must be made open),

or because the shareware is crippled and closed and there's similar open-source
software for free?

> Well, I can imagine people paying for such tools, but I guess their number will
> drastically decrease, and the feeling that it's still right to pay for
> shareware will erode over time even in those people who currently still have
> that attitude.

Funny you mention shareware indeed.  Shareware and freeware are two words I last
used on a 486 running DOS.  Ever since I got into Linux, free as in speech took
priority over free beer, even though it's gratuitous too.

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> But GPL says: If your product has *any* GPLed code in it, *all* the product
> software must be GPLed - every single byte of it. If you sell the thing, that
> is.

Not if you sell, if you distribute modified versions of it or software using it.
 It requires nothing from you if you code your whole software independently and
later calls optional GPL functionality from the outside, rather than as library
calls or code pasting.

More below.

> 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.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL

You can put your software in the PD and later combine it with GPL and if someone
later wants the non-GPL version, just take the PD with no png one.

If I were you, though, I'd instead simply not link with libpng (is it really GPL
rather than LGPL?).  I'd write my app without png support, have a command-line
switch or some graphical option to render/export png and call a separate
utility program to read/write the png, say, imagemagick or one short of my own
I'd be willing to put under the GPL for libpng access.

You could of course also write a non-GPL png library to counter the evil
advances of the FSF. :)

> I do believe they believe in their ideals: Total domination of the "free
> software" idea over all the software market. I haven't seen any statement to
> the effect that they will be happy with anything less.
>
> 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.

No, you're really uneasy because you think there'll be no more jobs for software
developers in a world made out completely of free software, whereas I see that
as an immense oportunity for much customization and software services using
very good free tools.

I don't see the end of software developer's careers happening by FSF's utopic
hands though, but by some future AI that renders us obsolete and a curiosity of
the past like blacksmiths.  On a second thought, it'll also render mankind
obsolete and we'll have far more worrying problems than lack of jobs, like
running for life or finding food and hidden caves big enough for everyone...

Post a reply to this message

Interesting to see how this whole discussion derives from a simple query 
about the Buddha....

[wow, man! I mean, Peace!]   :-)


Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"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

>> 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.

Just for the record I'm not accusing Woody either :-)

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote in message 
news:4976e65c@news.povray.org...
>
> Interesting to see how this whole discussion derives from a simple query 
> about the Buddha....
>
> [wow, man! I mean, Peace!]   :-)
>

Well I was trying not to get drawn in. I'll just have to try harder the next 
time  :-)

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Nay. It may have started that way,

It didn't. Read RMS's description of how it started. No need to speculate.

-- 
   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