Jim Henderson wrote:
> This is contrary to other discussions I've read on the topic.

It's what the FSF says also, as far as I know.

> If you include code I wrote in your code, then you have to respect my 
> wishes about the use of the code.

Then you're contradicting yourself there.

> Sure.  What ultimately may come out of the whole GCC kerfuffle is another 
> compiler without those restrictions, if the folks over at the FSF insist 
> on putting stupid restrictions in place.

Then it'll be a battle to see whose version gets incorporated into various 
distros. Which is exactly the problem I'm forseeing.

-- 
   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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> somebody wrote:
> > 2) Don't release code which is based on or interfacing with GPL'ed code.
>
> How come I can write code that interfaces with Linux without violating the
> GPL, but I can't write a plug-in for GCC without violating the GPL?

You're beginning to run into contradictions there.  Weren't you the one saying
the GPL doesn't enforce this behaviour?  That the measures taken are exactly
because the GPL alone would allow for closed plugins?

Other than that, you're right.  I believe gcc developers see plugins in the same
light as dynamic libs:  app + libs form a larger work and if one of the
components is GPL, the other should follow or not use it at all.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > This is contrary to other discussions I've read on the topic.
>
> It's what the FSF says also, as far as I know.
>
> > If you include code I wrote in your code, then you have to respect my
> > wishes about the use of the code.
>
> Then you're contradicting yourself there.
>
> > Sure.  What ultimately may come out of the whole GCC kerfuffle is another
> > compiler without those restrictions, if the folks over at the FSF insist
> > on putting stupid restrictions in place.
>
> Then it'll be a battle to see whose version gets incorporated into various
> distros. Which is exactly the problem I'm forseeing.

Something like that happened before.  See egcs.

BTW, I've finally taken the time to read more deeply into the GCC plugin
controversy and by searching through the mailing lists, I reached this:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html

It's interesting in that it brings to attention a point that very few seem to
notice when compiling with GCC:  the object code produced by GCC is statically
linked to a myriad of small GPL'd libs and yet you're able to release such
produced code under any license you want.  How can it be?  You see, there was
an exception in the GCC licensing that allowed for this.  So, with GPL3 around,
they thought it would also be a good time to update that exception.  Don't
worry, you can still license the produced code any way you wish.  But the
plugin architecture is what deserved the attention of the updating. ;)

Still, their reasoning seem sensible enough...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> somebody wrote:
>>> 2) Don't release code which is based on or interfacing with GPL'ed code.
>> How come I can write code that interfaces with Linux without violating the
>> GPL, but I can't write a plug-in for GCC without violating the GPL?
> 
> You're beginning to run into contradictions there.  Weren't you the one saying
> the GPL doesn't enforce this behaviour? 

Yes. Why is "somebody" telling me a choice is to not release code that isn't 
based on or interfacing with GPL code? In other words, the implication of 
the text above is that the only way to release a gcc plug-in is via GPL. But 
that isn't true. It's what FSF wants to be true, but it isn't true. Were it 
true, it would be the same situation as applications on Linux.

> That the measures taken are exactly
> because the GPL alone would allow for closed plugins?

Ding ding ding! Yes, exactly. I'm pointing out that no, the GPL alone allows 
for closed plug-ins in exactly the same way that GPL allows for closed 
applications running under Linux.

FSF wants to figure out a technological way of forcing others to only GPL 
code that runs as a plug-in to gcc. I feel that's over the top. I know it's 
their right to do whatever the f__k they please with their code. I don't 
believe it's the case they can enforce that thru their current license. I 
believe that them using technological means to prevent closed plug-ins from 
being written is similar to the technological means TiVo uses to prevent 
your code from running on their hardware, which FSF has complained about, 
hence making the FSF hypocritical. Does that make it clear?

> Other than that, you're right.  I believe gcc developers see plugins in the same
> light as dynamic libs:  app + libs form a larger work and if one of the
> components is GPL, the other should follow or not use it at all.

Except that they're wrong, depending on what you mean by "should". If by 
"should" you mean "the FSF would like that to be the case", then yes. If by 
"should" you mean "the FSF thinks that's already the case", then no.

-- 
   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:
> Still, their reasoning seem sensible enough...

Yes. It sounds very ... commercial.  "Likely to backfire..." Think about 
what that phrase means.  But I'll agree that they seem to have patched up 
the license to manage to make the *output* code from GCC fall under the GPL 
even if the plug-in doesn't. That's fine with me.

Also not sure why non-free software is "bad for society." I guess if you 
take that as an axiom, it makes sense, but I disagree that it's as obvious 
as FSF makes it out to be. Not sure why non-free software is more "bad for 
society" than non-free manufacturing techniques, non-free music, etc.

-- 
   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

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:57:50 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> This is contrary to other discussions I've read on the topic.
> 
> It's what the FSF says also, as far as I know.

Perhaps, but it's not in line with other discussions I've seen on the 
topic. <shrug>

> 
>> If you include code I wrote in your code, then you have to respect my
>> wishes about the use of the code.
> 
> Then you're contradicting yourself there.

No, I don't think I am.  You can use my code under my terms.  How does 
that contradict anything I've said so far?  If I write code, I get to say 
how it's used.  I have consistently said that.

>> Sure.  What ultimately may come out of the whole GCC kerfuffle is
>> another compiler without those restrictions, if the folks over at the
>> FSF insist on putting stupid restrictions in place.
> 
> Then it'll be a battle to see whose version gets incorporated into
> various distros. Which is exactly the problem I'm forseeing.

Possibly, though I don't see it as a "problem" per se.  I don't see 
choice as a problem. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> No, I don't think I am.  You can use my code under my terms.  How does 
> that contradict anything I've said so far?

That I can use your code for commercial gain if I just link it in without 
changing it?

You said
"""
Yes, but again, linking to something that's GPL'ed doesn't mean your
program has to be GPL'ed.
"""

Then you said
"""
If you include code I wrote in your code, then you have to respect my
wishes about the use of the code.
"""

> Possibly, though I don't see it as a "problem" per se.  I don't see 
> choice as a problem. :-)

It wouldn't be, if choice was really that easy.

-- 
   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:
> worry, you can still license the produced code any way you wish.  But the
> plugin architecture is what deserved the attention of the updating. ;)

Now here's a question for ya:

"""
However, if you used GCC in conjunction with GPL-incompatible software 
during the process of transforming high-level code to low-level code, that 
would not be an Eligible Compilation Process. This would happen if, for 
example, you used GCC with a proprietary plugin.
"""

Let's look at a couple of scenarios:

I modify gcc, but I never distribute my modifications. Can I license the 
resulting "Target Code" under a proprietary license?

I buy a proprietary plug-in that does something like (say) Purify, or 
performance measurements, or helps with debugging, by modifying the 
intermediate representation to include calls to the libraries used by the 
plug-in. I then run my code, improve the performance, fix the bugs, then 
recompile without the plug-in. Doesn't sound like the final release-mode 
executable is restricted.

How about if I develop my own proprietary plug-in that I never distribute. 
Is the target code still covered?

How about if I develop a plug-in, release it dual-licensed under 
"binary-only" for $100 a copy without permission to distribute, or under GPL 
and sell the first copy for $1,000,000 under GPL? It's available under GPL, 
now, so that makes it Eligible, right, so the code created by the plug-in is 
not GPLed.

What if the plug-in outputs stuff that compiles? It's not intermediate code. 
What if I have a plug-in that outputs LISP code that does the same thing as 
the C you input? Or which lets you input LISP which can then get translated 
down to executable code. Is LISP an "intermediate language"?

I don't think this is going to do what I think they think it's going to do.

-- 
   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

On 1/28/2009 12:29 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Right. That's my point. Why would GCC require a plug-in author to give
> it a particular license? It wouldn't be any different from the Linux
> kernel enforcing only running apps that were GPLed.

Shh... don't give them any ideas!!!

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> I don't think this is going to do what I think they think it's going to do.

Or one more thought ... What if I use the gcc front-end, a plug-in that 
saves the intermediate code to disk, and then I compile that intermediate 
code down to something that doesn't use gcc libraries? (Java bytecodes, .NET 
IL, or machine code that I generate completely within the plug-in...)

Doesn't sound like they're managing to cover everything it sounds like they 
think they're trying to cover. :-)

-- 
   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

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:20:56 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> No, I don't think I am.  You can use my code under my terms.  How does
>> that contradict anything I've said so far?
> 
> That I can use your code for commercial gain if I just link it in
> without changing it?
> 
> You said
> """
> Yes, but again, linking to something that's GPL'ed doesn't mean your
> program has to be GPL'ed.
> """
> 
> Then you said
> """
> If you include code I wrote in your code, then you have to respect my
> wishes about the use of the code.
> """
> 
>> Possibly, though I don't see it as a "problem" per se.  I don't see
>> choice as a problem. :-)
> 
> It wouldn't be, if choice was really that easy.

Linking != cut and paste of my code into your code.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Linking != cut and paste of my code into your code.

Well, no. But that's not what's under discussion. Your use of "use" is 
confusing. And plug-ins don't cut-and-paste[1] code from the system they're 
plugging into.


[1] Hi Warp!  ;-)

-- 
   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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Let's look at a couple of scenarios:

You're an evil man. ;)

BTW, asking me won't do any good.  How about handling these questions to the FSF
so they can debunk or reformulate their terms or wait and test for yourself once
the architecture is in place?

Post a reply to this message

On 1/29/2009 11:04 AM, nemesis wrote:
> Of couse, for those who don't like the GPL and its measures to assure
> sources are always available, forking is an option as is opting for
> another compiler under another license.

Forking is never an option with GPL without the fork also being GPL'd.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Let's look at a couple of scenarios:
> 
> You're an evil man. ;)

One thing I *am* good at is breaking other peoples' assumptions. I can 
usually crash someone else's program (while it's underdevelopment, of 
course) within minutes of testing it.

> BTW, asking me won't do any good.  How about handling these questions to the FSF
> so they can debunk or reformulate their terms or wait and test for yourself once
> the architecture is in place?

Feel free to pass them on. I hereby relinquish any copyright in those ideas 
or their wording. :-) I don't feel the need to help them make their software 
more closed, personally.  (I'm also unlikely to ever be affected by it 
either way. This is all brain-games for me. :-)

-- 
   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

Chambers wrote:
> On 1/29/2009 11:04 AM, nemesis wrote:
>> Of couse, for those who don't like the GPL and its measures to assure
>> sources are always available, forking is an option as is opting for
>> another compiler under another license.
> 
> Forking is never an option with GPL without the fork also being GPL'd.

Yes, but you could fork it, remove the parts that force plug-ins to be GPLed 
before they run, and then distribute the new fork under GPL.

-- 
   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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
> > On 1/29/2009 11:04 AM, nemesis wrote:
> >> Of couse, for those who don't like the GPL and its measures to assure
> >> sources are always available, forking is an option as is opting for
> >> another compiler under another license.
> >
> > Forking is never an option with GPL without the fork also being GPL'd.
>
> Yes, but you could fork it, remove the parts that force plug-ins to be GPLed
> before they run, and then distribute the new fork under GPL.

That's what I was talking about in context.  However, long discussions like this
are more likely to induce bad phrasings due to mental exhaustion and I
apologize.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:22:29 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Linking != cut and paste of my code into your code.
> 
> Well, no. But that's not what's under discussion. Your use of "use" is
> confusing. And plug-ins don't cut-and-paste[1] code from the system
> they're plugging into.

That's what I've been discussing all along, not in the context of the 
plugin discussion.  I agree that the GNU folks are not in the right here 
with their treatment of GCC plugins.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4983bdac@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > Don't assume. You want to release code mixed with GPL code,

> No, I don't! That's exactly what the article is talking about!

Doesn't matter, software that functions together is a block. Think of it
this way: Would GM allow a car dealership to put in, say, Toyota parts into
their cars and sell it as a whole? After all, Toyota is building their parts
from the ground up, not using any GM parts. In other words, packaging makes
a difference. If a piece of software depends on another to function as a
package, demanding that the licenses be compatible makes sense to me.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
>>> Don't assume. You want to release code mixed with GPL code,
> 
>> No, I don't! That's exactly what the article is talking about!
> 
> Doesn't matter, software that functions together is a block. Think of it
> this way: Would GM allow a car dealership to put in, say, Toyota parts into
> their cars and sell it as a whole? After all, Toyota is building their parts
> from the ground up, not using any GM parts. In other words, packaging makes
> a difference. If a piece of software depends on another to function as a
> package, demanding that the licenses be compatible makes sense to me.

	Perfect! Now you finally get it!

	You're invoking an analogy using a *closed* model and realizing that
what the gcc folks are doing is the same - all the while being GPL.

-- 
Tolkien Ring is the promised LAN for hobbits.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:4983bdac@news.povray.org...
>> somebody wrote:
>>> Don't assume. You want to release code mixed with GPL code,
> 
>> No, I don't! That's exactly what the article is talking about!
> 
> Doesn't matter, software that functions together is a block.

There's no such thing as "block" in copyright law.  Clearly, all the movies 
showing in the same movie theatre are functioning together "in a block", so 
of course they all have to come from the same movie studio, right?

> Would GM allow a car dealership to put in, say, Toyota parts into
> their cars and sell it as a whole?

They don't enforce that with copyrights.

> If a piece of software depends on another to function as a
> package, demanding that the licenses be compatible makes sense to me.

Sure. But you can't enforce that with copyrights.

-- 
   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

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	You're invoking an analogy using a *closed* model and realizing that
> what the gcc folks are doing is the same - all the while being GPL.

Good point.

There's something else I realized that's cognitively dissonant.

Software can't be free in the libre sense. "Free software" is just another 
word for "constrained people."  It's just as confusing to talk about 
software that's "free" as it is to confuse gratis with libre.

What do I mean?

Software doesn't make choices. More freedom means having more choices. 
Before the civil war, some people in this country had the freedom to own 
slaves. They could decide to own slaves, or not own slaves. After that, we 
took away their freedom to own slaves and instead gave the former slaves 
choices as to what they could do.

Software doesn't make choices. So software can't be "more free" or "less 
free". It can only affect the freedoms of people. The only way it makes 
sense to talk about "how free is this software/license" is to evaluate it 
with respect to what people actually do.

If I restrict the license to prevent you from doing certain things with the 
software I wrote, that doesn't make you more free. It makes you less free. 
It doesn't affect the software at all - the software is what it is and 
doesn't make choices. So the GPL is not as "free" as the MIT license, 
because it restricts the choices that someone other than the author can 
make. The author, of course, can make any choice he wants about his own 
original software - no argument there. But the authors who release their 
work under the GPL aren't making it "more free" than otherwise. They're 
simply saying "I'd rather not have improvements than have proprietary 
improvements, because the third level of improvements will be delayed." 
People releasing under the MIT license are saying "we hope you improve this, 
even if we decline to pay for the improvements."

-- 
   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

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> somebody wrote:
> >>> Don't assume. You want to release code mixed with GPL code,
> >
> >> No, I don't! That's exactly what the article is talking about!
> >
> > Doesn't matter, software that functions together is a block. Think of it
> > this way: Would GM allow a car dealership to put in, say, Toyota parts into
> > their cars and sell it as a whole? After all, Toyota is building their parts
> > from the ground up, not using any GM parts. In other words, packaging makes
> > a difference. If a piece of software depends on another to function as a
> > package, demanding that the licenses be compatible makes sense to me.
>
>  Perfect! Now you finally get it!
>
>  You're invoking an analogy using a *closed* model and realizing that
> what the gcc folks are doing is the same - all the while being GPL.

GPL was always a closed model of freedom.  Like someone previous analogy of it
being a country where you can spend your money in any way you like, as long as
it's spent *in* the country, not on foreign stuff.  It's the GPL playground,
where kids don't harm themselves as long as they're inside...

No one has ever stated otherwise and in any case, this closed model of freedom
is what, IMO, guarantees the continued evolution of GPL'd software at a faster
pace than leecher-friendly "more free" models.

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	You're invoking an analogy using a *closed* model and realizing that
> what the gcc folks are doing is the same - all the while being GPL.

Let me see if I can ramble about this even more...

Who does the GPL benefit?

Original author Alice writes some code, as does Xavier.

Alice releases it as GPL, Xavier as MIT.

Betty wants to improve Alice's code. Her only choice is to release her 
improvements as GPL as well.

Yvonne wants to improve Xavier's code. She can release her improvements as 
GPL, or as MIT, or as commercial software.

Say Yvonne builds some significant functionality that costs more money than 
Yvonne is willing to give away. Yvonne would like to spend one million 
dollars developing some software, then sell it for $10 each to 100,000 
people. Yvonne can do this. Betty can't.

(That's why commercial game companies, for example, don't use GPLed game 
libraries. It's cheaper to rewrite the libraries from scratch than to give 
away the game when you're done.)

Zacharia wants the functionality that Yvonne and Betty know how to create. 
Zacharia is willing to pay $10 for Yvonne's improvements, because it will 
save him $100 each month. He's not willing to spend $1M for Betty's 
improvements.

Charlie, however, is willing to forgo Yvonne's improvements because they're 
not "free" as in "libre". Charlie doesn't have the choice of getting Betty's 
improvements, because Betty never created them, because neither Betty nor 
anyone willing to hire Betty thought they were worth $1M.

Yvonne still has the choice, for any improvements she makes, of releasing 
them under GPL, MIT, or commercial licenses. Betty's choice is only to make 
the improvements that aren't so extensive that they cost her more than her 
spare time. Unless, of course, there's a company that (for example) sells 
hardware and can use the profits from selling hardware to pay for GPL 
software that provides similar functionality as other software that only 
runs on other hardware.

Who *does* the GPL benefit (compared to other free licenses)? It benefits 
not the person using the GPL software. It benefits not the person modifying 
the software. It benefits, instead, the person who gets the software after 
the second person has modified it. And it only benefits *that* person if 
they are a programmer or want a programmer to change it for them. So, in 
other words, the person best helped by the GPL is Charlie, and only if he's 
a programmer. In particular, it helps Charlie most when Charlie is also 
Alice, i.e., when the final customer of the changes to the software is the 
original author of the software. (Of course, it helps Doug when Charlie 
incorporates and improves his changes, and so on down the line, etc.)

This would seem to explain a fair amount.

It seems to explain why the best GPLed software is that which helps 
programmers create valuable for-fee services (or which has an exception 
letting you sell the results of using the software), like Linux, Apache, 
gcc, and the open source database engines.

It explains why there was no popular office suite before Sun and why there's 
still no good equivalent of SAP, TurboTax, PeachTree, and so on. These 
programs were too big to write as an open-source project just for kicks. 
They're not interesting enough to programmers to take to the level of 
completion needed to make them useful. Improvements to something like SAP 
isn't going to come back and make any programmer's life easier, so nobody 
feels the need to get others to try to contribute by making a version that 
can be GPLed.

Emacs and LaTeX is good enough for geeks, and those programs get steadily 
improved. Editing HTML by hand was good enough for "fancy" output, and it 
wasn't worth going much beyond that as an "office suite". Getting an office 
suite to the point where it would be useful to non-nerds is a large and 
significant undertaking, because you can't do it just a little bit. The 
"little bit" part is already done, in functionality like notepad, HTML, 
ispell, and so on. The big part is the boring part of putting it all 
together, making it deal with different file formats, getting it to conform 
to platform standards, writing the documentation and help screens, and all 
that other stuff the original author doesn't need.

Because, face it, if you're a nerd who also needed to do spreadsheets, you 
bought Excel or some other commercial product - it really wasn't worth 
spending a few years of your time to avoid using a commercial product. Or 
you wrote something specific to your need of the moment, which was useless 
to others.

It explains why the biggest successes - like Apache, Linux, MySql and 
PostgreSQL, gcc - are all targeted at creating and using non-GPLed software 
and services. Companies like Sun would write their own SPARC compiler of gcc 
switched to insisting all output from gcc fell under the GPL. Lots of 
companies use Apache, but few release the source to the scripts and database 
schemas their customers invoke under it. Other popular successes, like 
Firefox and Thunderbird, started out as closed-source commercial software, 
released when the companies were destroyed by competition.

I suspect large projects that aren't useful to individual programmers will 
very rarely be spontaneously developed under the GPL. There's going to be a 
large (and increasingly larger) class of programs that people want that just 
won't get developed for free, and the extent to which GPL software requires 
those programs to be given away is the extent to which GPL software won't be 
useful to the developers of those programs.

Comments welcome.

-- 
   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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Software doesn't make choices. So software can't be "more free" or "less
> free". It can only affect the freedoms of people.

Doh!

> If I restrict the license to prevent you from doing certain things with the
> software I wrote, that doesn't make you more free. It makes you less free.

Yes, specially leechers just waiting for some free lunch for their products.

> It doesn't affect the software at all - the software is what it is and
> doesn't make choices.

But it *does* affect the software:  GPL'd software evolve at faster pace than
MIT-style software.  IBM, RedHat, Novell are all major contributors of GPL'd
Linux-related software.  How many big enterprises contribute code to the *BSDs
without fear of their good work ending up powering their competition products,
who may make it one better and not disclose the modifications?

The GPL levels the playing field, the playground where everyone are children.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> GPL was always a closed model of freedom.

Somehow, a "closed model of freedom" sounds like "less free" to me. :-) It 
certainly doesn't sound like "better for society" or "information wants to 
be free" sorts of slogans the FSF normally uses.

> evolution of GPL'd software at a faster
> pace than leecher-friendly "more free" models.

I believe this applies *at best* to software programmers use. Nothing 
prevents anyone from taking MIT code and releasing modifications to it as 
MIT code.  So you have free evolution *and* commercial evolution, while you 
have only free evolution with the GPL.

Mind explaining under what circumstances GPL software leads to faster 
evolution than MIT software?

-- 
   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:
> How many big enterprises contribute code to the *BSDs

Well, MIT, and Berkeley, for example?  Hence the name of the software and 
the name of the license?

All the stuff like OpenAL, Apache, etc that don't use the GPL?

> without fear of their good work ending up powering their competition products,

Why is that bad? The software is still getting improved.

-- 
   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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > GPL was always a closed model of freedom.
>
> Somehow, a "closed model of freedom" sounds like "less free" to me. :-)

It's free for other free software.  Which is good enough in my book.

> certainly doesn't sound like "better for society" or "information wants to
> be free" sorts of slogans the FSF normally uses.

They are consistent in that they are pro free software, anti closed software and
they think free software is better for society.

> Mind explaining under what circumstances GPL software leads to faster
> evolution than MIT software?

Sure, you clipped it away from my previous post, so here you go again:

IBM, RedHat, Novell are all major contributors of GPL'd
Linux-related software.  How many big enterprises contribute code to the *BSDs
without fear of their good work ending up powering their competition products,
who may make it one better and not disclose the modifications?

The GPL levels the playing field, the playground where everyone are children.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > How many big enterprises contribute code to the *BSDs
>
> Well, MIT, and Berkeley, for example?  Hence the name of the software and
> the name of the license?

Those are academia.  What about industry players?

> All the stuff like OpenAL, Apache, etc that don't use the GPL?

Yes, Apache and its wealth of web and java tools are popular too.  Even
Microsoft is contributing to them, as well as Sun and IBM.  Web tools are of
immediate usefulness to everyone, not just Linux or GNU.  And, as I understand
it, it powers many proprietary tools of those companies (so far, not from
Microsoft).

> > without fear of their good work ending up powering their competition products,
>
> Why is that bad? The software is still getting improved.

That's true when it's GPL'd and truly getting improved for everyone, not when
it's released under some promiscuous licensing, some competitor picks it up,
makes it better and power their product with the superior modification and
pisses and laughs on your face.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:09:17 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Betty wants to improve Alice's code. Her only choice is to release her
> improvements as GPL as well.

Minor nit, but Betty doesn't have to release her improvements at all.  
She can improve the code for her personal use and not release anything.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> How many big enterprises contribute code to the *BSDs
>> Well, MIT, and Berkeley, for example?  Hence the name of the software and
>> the name of the license?
> 
> Those are academia.  What about industry players?

OK, here's a question for you. Right now, you're saying
"""
GPL'd software evolve at faster pace than
MIT-style software.
"""

Since this is your assertion, I'll assume you actually know of some 
documented evidence for this fact?  Something that measures the evolution in 
some way of software under the two different licenses, in a way that's not 
subject to confirmation bias?

Because otherwise, we call that FUD.

>> All the stuff like OpenAL, Apache, etc that don't use the GPL?
> 
> Yes, Apache and its wealth of web and java tools are popular too.  Even
> Microsoft is contributing to them, as well as Sun and IBM.

So you don't need the GPL to make industry give back, see?

And the GPL doesn't make industry give back either. I don't see MapReduce or 
BigTable getting released by Google, for example.

>  Web tools are of
> immediate usefulness to everyone, not just Linux or GNU.  And, as I understand
> it, it powers many proprietary tools of those companies (so far, not from
> Microsoft).

You didn't actually read thru my entire screed, did you?

> That's true when it's GPL'd and truly getting improved for everyone, not when
> it's released under some promiscuous licensing, some competitor picks it up,
> makes it better and power their product with the superior modification and
> pisses and laughs on your face.

Name two. Really, I asked this before and got no answer. Name two 
MIT-licensed software packages that are no longer available because some 
commercial entity took it over.  Because, again, otherwise it's FUD.

I think there's also two kinds of "use" we're conflating here.

1) I write an entire OS from scratch, but I use your TCP stack. Or I write 
an entire video game, but I use your code to uncompress zips.

2) I take something like GNU and add an optimization, or I take something 
like MySql and improve the efficiency in some minor cases that are important 
to me.

While for (2) it might make sense about giving back the software, it doesn't 
make sense that it's that big a problem. If the efficiency hack is really 
worthwhile, someone else will do it for free. If it isn't, then it's worth 
the money being charged.

Thinking that (say) Microsoft should release their entire OS under the same 
terms as the BSD TCP stack is silly. They wouldn't have used it at all if 
that was the case.

-- 
   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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> >  You're invoking an analogy using a *closed* model and realizing that
> > what the gcc folks are doing is the same - all the while being GPL.

Which means free for *use* by anyone and for *modifications or forming larger
works* by anyone willing to comply with the GPL, which says you shouldn't deny
other persons the same freedom given to you.

> Betty wants to improve Alice's code. Her only choice is to release her
> improvements as GPL as well.

Jim already commented on this one.

> Say Yvonne builds some significant functionality that costs more money than
> Yvonne is willing to give away. Yvonne would like to spend one million
> dollars developing some software, then sell it for $10 each to 100,000
> people. Yvonne can do this. Betty can't.

Why not?  AFAIK, it's exactly what RedHat, Novell and other Linux-based firms
are doing.

> (That's why commercial game companies, for example, don't use GPLed game
> libraries. It's cheaper to rewrite the libraries from scratch than to give
> away the game when you're done.)

I've always said rewriting from scratch is an option.  Those guys just do it
instead of whine endlessly on the GPL.

> I suspect large projects that aren't useful to individual programmers will
> very rarely be spontaneously developed under the GPL.

Well, if it pleases you, I don't feel an urge to write SAP from scratch be it
under GPL, MIT or a 1 million dollar contract.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> GPL was always a closed model of freedom.
>> Somehow, a "closed model of freedom" sounds like "less free" to me. :-)
> 
> It's free for other free software.  Which is good enough in my book.

Well, if you're going to start redefining the meaning of the word "free" and 
not use FSF's definition, then it's going to make for a very confusing 
conversation.

If by "free software" you mean "software that's GPL-compatible", you're just 
begging the question.

> IBM, RedHat, Novell are all major contributors of GPL'd
> Linux-related software.  How many big enterprises contribute code to the *BSDs

I don't know. You tell me. It's your assertion.

As far as I can tell, much of the work in Linux was done by AT&T in 
designing the whole system, and BSD in setting up the APIs that make 
internet sockets work well, and commercial companies in donating time and 
effort to create IETF and W3C standards.

The actual code itself is pretty small stuff, easily reproduced.

How much did CERN contribute to WWW compared to, say, Mozilla? How much did 
MS contribute by inventing XMLHTTP, compared to the coders who implemented 
it in firefox?

> The GPL levels the playing field, the playground where everyone are children.

And by disregarding the players who aren't children, you're again begging 
the question.

-- 
   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 wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:09:17 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Betty wants to improve Alice's code. Her only choice is to release her
>> improvements as GPL as well.
> 
> Minor nit, but Betty doesn't have to release her improvements at all.  
> She can improve the code for her personal use and not release anything.

Sure. But we're talking about giving back and/or improving society. If the 
code isn't redistributed, there's no advantage or disadvantage of MIT 
license over the GPL license.

But thanks for the note.

-- 
   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:
> Why not?  AFAIK, it's exactly what RedHat, Novell and other Linux-based firms
> are doing.

Ask the people who write video games and are put out of business because 90% 
of the games are pirated.

> I've always said rewriting from scratch is an option.  Those guys just do it
> instead of whine endlessly on the GPL.

Sure. As do I. But I'm talking about the GPL, and whether it improves or 
hurts the software development system. I'm not whining. I'm trying to have a 
rational discussion. By labeling it as whining, you're simply trying an ad 
homeniem attack, indicating you don't actually have an answer to it.

Yes. They rewrite from scratch. An excellent victory for improving software 
via the GPL. Thanks for showing that.

> Well, if it pleases you, I don't feel an urge to write SAP from scratch be it
> under GPL, MIT or a 1 million dollar contract.

No, but some people obviously do. By dismissing them as unworthy to play in 
your playground, you beg the question.

-- 
   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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Why not?  AFAIK, it's exactly what RedHat, Novell and other Linux-based firms
> > are doing.
>
> Ask the people who write video games and are put out of business because 90%
> of the games are pirated.

Piracy is a problem in Windows environments, as far as I can tell.  How this has
anything to do with this conversation is really beyond me.

> They rewrite from scratch. An excellent victory for improving software
> via the GPL.

GPL can't improve software if it's not chosen in the first place, but it's their
option.

> > Well, if it pleases you, I don't feel an urge to write SAP from scratch be it
> > under GPL, MIT or a 1 million dollar contract.
>
> No, but some people obviously do.

Where are they?

> By dismissing them as unworthy to play in
> your playground, you beg the question.

I don't think the GPL would be against a SAP-alike project.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> nemesis wrote:
> >>> How many big enterprises contribute code to the *BSDs
> >> Well, MIT, and Berkeley, for example?  Hence the name of the software and
> >> the name of the license?
> >
> > Those are academia.  What about industry players?
>
> OK, here's a question for you. Right now, you're saying
> """
> GPL'd software evolve at faster pace than
> MIT-style software.
> """
>
> Since this is your assertion, I'll assume you actually know of some
> documented evidence for this fact?

No, sorry.  It's just from my point of view.  Linux seems to offers a more
"slick" experience for a desktop user than something as FreeBSD, but of course
this could be due to FreeBSD's main target as a server system.  Or perhaps
simply because there are far more developers behind Linux than FreeBSD or
OpenBSD, despite all the high praises these systems get from a technical
standpoint.  Which begs the question of why.

I assumed it was because the GPL levels the field to the point where people do
not fear their code being used for anything more than free GPL'd software.  But
you may disagree with my point of view.

> > Yes, Apache and its wealth of web and java tools are popular too.  Even
> > Microsoft is contributing to them, as well as Sun and IBM.
>
> So you don't need the GPL to make industry give back, see?

Indeed.  Of course, we could also speculate how much worse or better, or faster
or slower development would be in the Apache camp had they opted for GPL.
Since you enjoy long-winded speculation, I'll leave that for you as a thought
experiment... :P

> And the GPL doesn't make industry give back either. I don't see MapReduce or
> BigTable getting released by Google, for example.

Funny.  You know that's because MapReduce and BigTable were not GPL'd in the
first place.  They are Google properties, period.

> > That's true when it's GPL'd and truly getting improved for everyone, not when
> > it's released under some promiscuous licensing, some competitor picks it up,
> > makes it better and power their product with the superior modification and
> > pisses and laughs on your face.
>
> Name two. Really, I asked this before and got no answer. Name two
> MIT-licensed software packages that are no longer available because some
> commercial entity took it over.

It's not the case of being no longer available, but of being developed on a far
slower pace than GPL'd software.  But I'm really just pulling it out from my
ass.  Just mild speculation from a free desktop user.

> Thinking that (say) Microsoft should release their entire OS under the same
> terms as the BSD TCP stack is silly. They wouldn't have used it at all if
> that was the case.

Fine.  What was the arguing again?

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> Why not?  AFAIK, it's exactly what RedHat, Novell and other Linux-based firms
>>> are doing.
>> Ask the people who write video games and are put out of business because 90%
>> of the games are pirated.
> 
> Piracy is a problem in Windows environments, as far as I can tell.  How this has
> anything to do with this conversation is really beyond me.

You asked why someone GPLing their software can't spend $1M on it and sell 
100,000 copies for $10 each like someone using proprietary licenses. Even 
with illegal copying, companies go out of business before making the money 
back they spent, let alone if the license requires them to give it away.

>>> Well, if it pleases you, I don't feel an urge to write SAP from scratch be it
>>> under GPL, MIT or a 1 million dollar contract.
>> No, but some people obviously do.
> 
> Where are they?

www.sap.com

>> By dismissing them as unworthy to play in
>> your playground, you beg the question.
> 
> I don't think the GPL would be against a SAP-alike project.

No, but it won't happen, because there's not enough revenue in it when you 
spread it around to everyone who will freeload off it.  GPL doesn't prevent 
leeching. It only prevents leeching the *code*.

-- 
   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:
> No, sorry.  It's just from my point of view. 

Actually, that's kind of a shame. I'd think such a study would be valuable 
to society.

I honestly think the GPL is probably a good approach for some types of 
software. I expect something like emacs (as one extreme example) would 
evolve very slowly if people weren't encouraged to give back repeatedly. 
Stuff that programmers and sysadmins use to do their work is ideal for this 
sort of stuff, because the GPL probably helps there. Especially with large 
projects (like compilers and editors and embeddable scripting languages) 
rather than small libraries that just help out the main program.


On the other hand, open-source tax preparation software is unlikely to ever 
go GPL, methinks. People are unlikely to want to use tax software that has 
no sort of warranty, an unbranded tax software is as suspicious to 
authorities as doing it yourself[1], the cost of building your own tax prep 
software compared to understanding someone else's is (I'm guessing) pretty 
equivalent, the user interface is going to be very important (which means 
actual usability tests and such), and it's a cash cow - you can sell the 
same software every year with relatively few changes.


In the third category is stuff like big CAD software (by which I mean stuff 
that'll perhaps even simulate the physics of the car you're driving and so 
on), maybe some kinds of scientific software libraries (protein folding or 
some such), etc. The sort of thing where some company or lab or whatever 
might write the software as part of research, then release it in PD, where 
it can grow with everyone's needs. Like Blender, for example - our output is 
movies, but our tools we can release free, so our future movies benefit from 
others improving our tools. OpenOffice kind of falls into this same 
category, except with a different initial goal. I think in this category 
you're going to see continued competition between GPL software and 
proprietary commercial software, because there's just too many features 
people will want and just too much UI and such. The commercial software will 
have architectures for plug-ins and such so others can output their favorite 
formats or drive their favorite machine tools, and the GPL software will 
continue to have exceptions allowing the result of using the tools to be 
commercially viable.


Of course, good free software can drive commercial software out of business 
(just like pirating commercial software can), but I've never heard of the 
opposite happening. So chances are it's only going to get "more free" as 
time goes on. I already see that it's very difficult to start a new small 
project in an existing environment and make any money on it. I suspect that 
few of the things you see on an iPod (in the apple store) making money would 
make any money on a desktop machine, for example, because the market is so 
saturated. If you expect to make money, you need to be associated with some 
giant company with a huge barrier to entry or risk having people with too 
much time on their hands take your designs and ideas and do just the code 
part and then give it away.



[1] I'm guessing that the IRS is more likely suspicious of individuals doing 
their own tax forms than tax forms coming from large tax preparation 
companies with reputations and deep pockets to protect.
-- 
   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:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Let's look at a couple of scenarios:
> 
> You're an evil man. ;)

Another couple of thoughts, on the way in which having plug-ins tied to GCC 
output seems strange...

For one: I can hire you to write a plug-in for me, never distribute the 
plug-in, but distribute executable code produced by the plug-in. I can't, 
however, find that you've already anticipated my need, created a proprietary 
plug-in, buy it from you, and distribute the executable output. I actually 
have to hire you *before* you write the plug-in to do that.

For two: I could write a plug-in that does source transformations of various 
kinds, write my source code using that plug-in, compile it, distribute the 
executables *and* source but not the plug-in. I'd be complying with all the 
terms of the licenses, but you'd still not be able to compile the code and 
come up with the executable.

Both of these are predicated on the fact that I can GPL my code and still 
never distribute it if I don't want to. I'm pretty sure that works out.

-- 
   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

Darren New escreveu:
> For one: I can hire you to write a plug-in for me, never distribute the 
> plug-in, but distribute executable code produced by the plug-in. I 
> can't, however, find that you've already anticipated my need, created a 
> proprietary plug-in, buy it from you, and distribute the executable 
> output. I actually have to hire you *before* you write the plug-in to do 
> that.

Life is odd, huh?  Anyway, it's not the case of hiring someone before or 
later, it's just that it can't be a proprietary plugin, period.

> For two: I could write a plug-in that does source transformations of 
> various kinds, write my source code using that plug-in, compile it, 
> distribute the executables *and* source but not the plug-in. I'd be 
> complying with all the terms of the licenses, but you'd still not be 
> able to compile the code and come up with the executable.

I foresee a not too popular rank for your plugin. ;)

> Both of these are predicated on the fact that I can GPL my code and 
> still never distribute it if I don't want to.

Yes.  You can also make a lifetime discovery, never disclose it to 
anyone and someone else receive the glory for the same discovery some 
time later.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Life is odd, huh?  Anyway, it's not the case of hiring someone before or 
> later, it's just that it can't be a proprietary plugin, period.

It doesn't have to be. I can just make it GPL and never give out the code. 
Just like my own changes.

If you sell it to me, you can't stop me from distributing the plug-in 
without stopping me from distributing the final code. If I hire you, I can 
distribute the resultant code without distributing the plug-in needed to 
create it. :-)

Or am I missing something here?

> I foresee a not too popular rank for your plugin. ;)

Well, the whole discussion here is predicated on caring more about secrecy 
than popularity. :-)

> Yes.  You can also make a lifetime discovery, never disclose it to 
> anyone and someone else receive the glory for the same discovery some 
> time later.

That doesn't really matter to society, does it? :-)

-- 
   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

Darren New escreveu:
> Or am I missing something here?

You said:
"For one: I can hire you to write a plug-in for me, never distribute the 
plug-in, but distribute executable code produced by the plug-in."

That's perfectly acceptable.

"I can't, however, find that you've already anticipated my need, created 
a proprietary plug-in, buy it from you"

That's not, because they are enforcing the GPL, rightfully or not.

So, your replies don't quite follow:

 > It doesn't have to be. I can just make it GPL and never give out the
 > code. Just like my own changes.

You don't even have to make your changes GPL'd for a GPL program if you 
don't redistribute.

 > If you sell it to me, you can't stop me from distributing the plug-in
 > without stopping me from distributing the final code.

Sell the proprietary plugin as in sell a copy or sell you the copyright 
and code?

 > If I hire you, I
 > can distribute the resultant code without distributing the plug-in
 > needed to create it. :-)

Thing I don't quite get is:  are you talking about the resultant code 
from the gcc+plugin setup?  What is the difference from any code 
generated from gcc?  You can license it anyway you like, no GPL needed.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New escreveu:
>> Or am I missing something here?
> 
> You said:
> "For one: I can hire you to write a plug-in for me, never distribute the 
> plug-in, but distribute executable code produced by the plug-in."
> 
> That's perfectly acceptable.
> 
> "I can't, however, find that you've already anticipated my need, created 
> a proprietary plug-in, buy it from you"
> 
> That's not, because they are enforcing the GPL, rightfully or not.

Isn't that what I said?  I can do the first, but not the second?

> You don't even have to make your changes GPL'd for a GPL program if you 
> don't redistribute.

Right. But the plug-in, as far as I understand it, can't be proprietary.

>  > If you sell it to me, you can't stop me from distributing the plug-in
>  > without stopping me from distributing the final code.
> 
> Sell the proprietary plugin as in sell a copy or sell you the copyright 
> and code?

I don't know. I haven't tried to figure out what the GPL says about selling 
the copyright to a GPLed program. :-)

>  > If I hire you, I
>  > can distribute the resultant code without distributing the plug-in
>  > needed to create it. :-)
> 
> Thing I don't quite get is:  are you talking about the resultant code 
> from the gcc+plugin setup?  What is the difference from any code 
> generated from gcc?  You can license it anyway you like, no GPL needed.

No, you can't. That's what I'm saying.  If you use a GPLed plug-in to gcc, 
you can sell the resultant code. If you use a proprietary plug-in to gcc, 
you can't sell the resultant code.  That's what the license says, at least.

The original link was trying to figure out how to get proprietary plug-ins 
to not work *at all*, even if you never distributed the compiled code.

-- 
   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

Darren New wrote:
> Isn't that what I said?  I can do the first, but not the second?

Assuming, that is, that you had intended to quote the entire sentence, which 
ended "and distribute the resultant executable output."

-- 
   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

Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> But it seriously limits the use for open source software in commercial
>> products.
> 
>   GPL doesn't only limit the use of GPL'd software in commercial products,
> it limits its use in *all* products which are not GPL, including open
> source projects. Thus it's hugely restrictive.

Currently, closed-source program 'ccc' can link to BSD-licensed
library 'bbb', but not to GPL-licensed library 'ggg'. But 'bbb' can't link
to 'ggg' either, which is what you're complaining about.

This is because otherwise, bbb could link to ggg, then ccc could link to bbb
and end up indirectly linking to GPL code (ggg).

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> somebody wrote:
>> GPL neither protects, nor restricts the rights of anyone using any other
>> license.
> 
> It does so by preventing you from using a different license. The GPL
> prevents you from linking code with a different license to GPLed code. The
> MIT license doesn't.
> 
> If you can't see that, then I'm not sure what the problem is.
> 
>> Maybe so, but that's irrelevant. The author can pick any license that he
>> wants.
> 
> Unless he's authoring a plug-in for GCC.

You can make a BSD-licensed plug-in for GCC, but the combination of both
when run would be GPL.

Why does it even matter then?

Because a commercial company can take a single function (that doesn't
interact with gcc) from the BSD plugin and use it on its closed-source
program.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> FSF wants to figure out a technological way of forcing others to only GPL
> code that runs as a plug-in to gcc. I feel that's over the top. I know
> it's their right to do whatever the f__k they please with their code. I
> don't believe it's the case they can enforce that thru their current
> license.

Yes! And that was exactly my point when I created this thread.

> I believe that them using technological means to prevent closed 
> plug-ins from being written is similar to the technological means TiVo
> uses to prevent your code from running on their hardware, which FSF has
> complained about, hence making the FSF hypocritical.

The FSF didn't only "complain" about it; they created a whole new version of
GPL because of it.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Comments welcome.

What license do you apply to the contents of that post? Because it's
seriously worth redistributing.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> What license do you apply to the contents of that post? Because it's
> seriously worth redistributing.

Feel free to distribute it and attribute it to me if you would. :-)

It's just basic economics, tho.

-- 
   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