 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka escreveu:
> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>> It's a matter of perspective, of course. They could very well allow for non-GPL
>> closed-source software to be plugins for gcc, but chose not to. It's their
>> software and their terms.
>
> ROFL!!
>
> That's a *really* good one...
>
> It's not *THEIR* software - it's the software of many, many, many contributors.
Yes, I'd like to say my software, but thought the pronoum their would
fit best to the situation, ambiguous as it is.
> So say again, who chose this interpretation of "derivative work"?
>
> The software authors? I doubt.
They chose it when accepted contributing to a software project born out
of the FSF efforts. BTW, I believe the FSF is the copyright owner of
all gcc and other GNU code. I don't know if their old policy still
applies, but they used to accept patches only if authors were willing to
give them the copyright, so as to "fight" any legal threats. How evil
is that, huh? ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > So say again, who chose this interpretation of "derivative work"?
> >
> > The software authors? I doubt.
>
> They chose it when accepted contributing to a software project born out
> of the FSF efforts.
I'm not sure about the history of the GCC code; however, what you say would mean
that no single line of source code existed to start with before the GCC project
was launched as a GPL project, and no single line of source code was taken from
other, truly free software.
I seriously doubt that this is the case.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> What prevents the code from being both MIT licensed and GPL licensed?
> The MIT license, or the GPL license?
The author of the code. He is the copyright holder and can license
under MIT, GPL, both or none. If he licenses under MIT, someone later
can take it verbatim and release under GPL as well. If he releases
under the GPL, no one *but him* can later also release it under MIT
license or any other.
> Having answered that, can you see where someone would say the GPL is
> more restrictive than the MIT license?
What is more free? Something that takes measures to always be free or
something that is so free that even allows something to not be free anymore?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka escreveu:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> So say again, who chose this interpretation of "derivative work"?
>>>
>>> The software authors? I doubt.
>> They chose it when accepted contributing to a software project born out
>> of the FSF efforts.
>
> I'm not sure about the history of the GCC code; however, what you say would mean
> that no single line of source code existed to start with before the GCC project
> was launched as a GPL project, and no single line of source code was taken from
> other, truly free software.
>
> I seriously doubt that this is the case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/History
Simply googling for "history of gcc" suffices. After failing to grab a
proper free compiler, Stallman wrote one from scratch, though adapting a
C front end from one of the previous compilers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Of course, you can always communicate with it via IPC. When it's a
> single process, it's a single process.
Somehow, I don't remember the license talking about a "process".
--
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:
> What is more free? Something that takes measures to always be free or
> something that is so free that even allows something to not be free
> anymore?
Something released under the MIT license is always free.
--
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:
> but they used to accept patches only if authors were willing to
> give them the copyright, so as to "fight" any legal threats. How evil
> is that, huh? ;)
Pretty evil, if you later want to release it under a different license.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Mueen Nawaz
Subject: Re: This GPL stuff is getting ridiculous
Date: 29 Jan 2009 19:54:07
Message: <49824faf@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Warp escreveu:
>> By not being as free as it advertises to be.
>
> I see it like as in: "so free that won't let otherwise"
There was once a country that had unlimited freedom of speech. They
banned anyone from ever uttering any notions that suggested that some
speech should be limited.
Speech was "so free that they wouldn't let otherwise"
There was another country where you could use your earnings to buy
anything you could afford. You were free to do whatever you wanted with
your money, as long as you didn't give give that money to anyone from
another country, nor spend the money outside your country. If someone
from outside gave you money, you were allowed to keep it.
You could do whatever you wanted with the money, as long as you didn't
do whatever you weren't allowed to. It was so free.
A cell phone company provided the ultimate freedom: You could use their
service to call whoever you wanted at *no* cost whatsoever, as long you
only called other Sprint lines. You could, of course, receive calls from
Sprint phones, but those who called you would then be forced to the
Sprint plan. Additionally, once you got a Sprint phone, the law forbade
you from ever switching to any other company.
It was truly free.
--
"Apple I" (c) Copyright 1767, Sir Isaac Newton.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > What is more free? Something that takes measures to always be free or
> > something that is so free that even allows something to not be free
> > anymore?
>
> Something released under the MIT license is always free.
gcc evolution is guaranteed by requiring that all modifications and bug fixes
are too released under the same GPL, thus, free. I suspect there's no gcc BSD
equivalent because good code in it would likely be a basis for much better
commercial equivalents, who wouldn't be required by the license to give away
modified code.
GPL'd software seems to evolve much faster than BSD software. You may tell it's
because of GPL's damned "viral" behaviour, but it's exactly what guarantees the
continual perfecting of GPL'd code, since it can't be made non-free and
powering leeches.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > but they used to accept patches only if authors were willing to
> > give them the copyright, so as to "fight" any legal threats. How evil
> > is that, huh? ;)
>
> Pretty evil, if you later want to release it under a different license.
Indeed. But then you realize your contribution is just a grain of sand among
many others and you wouldn't be able to do it even if each copyright holder
remained with their respective copyrights without their consent -- specially if
you're planning for a commercial license. And then, you also realize it's your
choice to try to improve this free software project where everyone benefits or
apply your patch to some non-existent, non-GPL equivalent. Or simply dig
Visual Studio.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Warp escreveu:
> >> By not being as free as it advertises to be.
> >
> > I see it like as in: "so free that won't let otherwise"
>
> There was once a country that had unlimited freedom of speech. They
> banned anyone from ever uttering any notions that suggested that some
> speech should be limited.
>
> Speech was "so free that they wouldn't let otherwise"
>
> There was another country where you could use your earnings to buy
> anything you could afford. You were free to do whatever you wanted with
> your money, as long as you didn't give give that money to anyone from
> another country, nor spend the money outside your country. If someone
> from outside gave you money, you were allowed to keep it.
>
> You could do whatever you wanted with the money, as long as you didn't
> do whatever you weren't allowed to. It was so free.
>
> A cell phone company provided the ultimate freedom: You could use their
> service to call whoever you wanted at *no* cost whatsoever, as long you
> only called other Sprint lines. You could, of course, receive calls from
> Sprint phones, but those who called you would then be forced to the
> Sprint plan. Additionally, once you got a Sprint phone, the law forbade
> you from ever switching to any other company.
>
> It was truly free.
Nice anecdote. :)
So, any freedoms come with restrictions of one kind or another to it, huh? ;)
I still prefer country 2. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> I see it like as in: "so free that won't let otherwise"
You're about 25 years too late with this. "We restrict you so you can be free!"
--
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:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> What is more free? Something that takes measures to always be free or
>>> something that is so free that even allows something to not be free
>>> anymore?
>> Something released under the MIT license is always free.
>
> gcc evolution is guaranteed by requiring that all modifications and bug fixes
> are too released under the same GPL, thus, free.
That's incorrect, as you've repeatedly pointed out.
MIT licensed code is always free to do whatever you want with it. Whether
that's a good thing or a bad thing is a different question. You're arguing
that the GPL is "more free" than the MIT license, and this is just factually
incorrect. It has more restrictions than software licensed with the MIT
license and software released as GPL can be used for fewer purposes.
When I argue that the MIT license is more free and has fewer restrictions,
it's not a counter-argument to point out that GPL leads to better code. Any
more than arguing slavery is less free than sufferage is countered by the
fact that cotton costs less if you have slaves to pick 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> but they used to accept patches only if authors were willing to
>>> give them the copyright, so as to "fight" any legal threats. How evil
>>> is that, huh? ;)
>> Pretty evil, if you later want to release it under a different license.
>
> Indeed. But then you realize your contribution is just a grain of sand among
> many others
Firstly, you understand that by giving the FSF the copyright, you've given
them permission to prevent you from releasing your own code with a different
license, right?
Copyright is the right to restrict others from copying your work. It's not
the right to copy it, but to prevent others from doing so.
--
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 in message
news:49827570$1@news.povray.org...
> MIT licensed code is always free to do whatever you want with it. Whether
> that's a good thing or a bad thing is a different question. You're arguing
> that the GPL is "more free" than the MIT license, and this is just
factually
> incorrect.
That is a matter of opinion, and how you define "free".
Is a democracy that cannot be voted out more or less democratic than a
democracy that can be voted out?
Frankly, I'm undecided on both counts, as there are arguments to be made for
either side.
GPL does bring more restrictions for usage, but ensures that code always
stays free. MIT license is less restrictive, but it also means it does not
ensure continuity of free future code as much as GPL does. It's a tradeoff.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> I see it like as in: "so free that won't let otherwise"
>
> You're about 25 years too late with this. "We restrict you so you can
> be free!"
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message
news:web.4981eb2913a704f8bdc576310@news.povray.org...
> "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> > > The GPL
> > > prevents you from linking code with a different license to GPLed code.
> > That *is* against the stipulation of the license. So it's not preventing
> > anybody who agrees to the terms of the license. If you wish to use GPL
code
> > with non-GPL code, you are *not* agreeing to the terms of the GPL
license,
> > so of course it's not going to apply to you.
> I'm sure quite a lot of people contributing to open source software
projects
> aren't even aware of this.
>
> Others that may have contributed years ago may find that it's not exactly
what
> they wanted to happen with their code when they released it, so their
copyright
> is not worth a piece of dingo's scat to enforce their interests in that
matter.
I'm quite sure there are a lot of people who make all sorts of mistakes due
to ignorance, laziness, stupidity. Bottomline is, you cannot force people to
RTFM or to RTFP. If they do not, it's their own problem.
> I have no problem with the fact that licenses may at times be misused
contrary
> to the original intentions. I wouldn't even have much of a problem if the
FSF
> continued this practice of assimilating software for their own cause. But
I'd
> appreciate it if the FSF (and supporters) would be aware and honest about
this,
> instead of claiming to better the world. Let alone being the best
> world-betterers around.
I think OS is for the most part a stupid idea (I will start giving away code
when my baker starts giving away bread), but I don't see how it's FSF's
fault if people don't care to know what they are signing their name under.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> nemesis wrote:
>>>> but they used to accept patches only if authors were willing to
>>>> give them the copyright, so as to "fight" any legal threats. How evil
>>>> is that, huh? ;)
>>> Pretty evil, if you later want to release it under a different license.
>>
>> Indeed. But then you realize your contribution is just a grain of
>> sand among
>> many others
>
> Firstly, you understand that by giving the FSF the copyright, you've
> given them permission to prevent you from releasing your own code with a
> different license, right?
Yes, and I'm pretty sure all GPL contributors willing to do so,
including commercial entities, are well aware of it.
> Copyright is the right to restrict others from copying your work. It's
> not the right to copy it, but to prevent others from doing so.
Copyright gets a twist in the GPL, the so-called copyleft: the
copyright holder explicitely *grants* others the rights to use, copy and
modify it, as long as it's always under the GPL. The copyright holder
of the original GPL'd code is still the same, but what does this mean
when he explicitely grants others the right to use, copy and modify it?
The only power left to FSF is if they suddenly change from a foundation
to a corporation and license the body of GNU software under a
restrictive commercial license (though the original codebase still GPL)
and become the next Microsoft from then on. Pissing and laughing on all
contributors who've given away copyrights thus far. Perhaps they launch
this malign plan once the HURD kernel is ready after its 30 years of
development so far? It'll be the perfect system to run Duke Nukem
Forever...
Note also that, even though the official gcc and other GNU software only
accept patches with the copyrights given to the FSF (I'm not really sure
about this today, but for the sake of argument, let's stick with the
notion), nothing prevents one from forking gcc and maintaining a
personal branch of it with modifications whose copyright does not go to
the FSF. You can even redistribute it, under the GPL for sure, but
you're the copyright holder only for your patches to the codebase.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> Warp escreveu:
>>>> By not being as free as it advertises to be.
>>> I see it like as in: "so free that won't let otherwise"
<snip>
>> It was truly free.
>
> Nice anecdote. :)
>
> So, any freedoms come with restrictions of one kind or another to it, huh? ;)
That wasn't really my point. I was pointing out that I found your
statement above about freedom to be somewhat silly.
The FSF folks love to play games with the word "free". I was giving
scenarios where "free" would be quite bad, and would also not be free
for others.
> I still prefer country 2. ;)
Until you realize that all other countries will stop doing business
with you.
--
"Apple I" (c) Copyright 1767, Sir Isaac Newton.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> That is a matter of opinion, and how you define "free".
I don't think so. I think there's a very easy metric.
If everything I can do with software A I can also do with software B, but
there are some things I can do with B that I can't do with A, then B is more
free than A.
> GPL does bring more restrictions for usage, but ensures that code always
> stays free. MIT license is less restrictive, but it also means it does not
> ensure continuity of free future code as much as GPL does. It's a tradeoff.
The MIT license ensures that anything licensed under the MIT license is
free. Now, you can take that code, and add *NEW* code that isn't MIT
licensed to it. But that isn't the code that was MIT licensed.
You're conflating "the code that I released" with "the code that you
released that builds on my code." You think that if the latter isn't free,
then the former isn't either.
GPL isn't there to make *my* code free. It's there to make free the code of
people who improve GPLed code. The brainwashing in this case is to make
people think that if I improve your code, then it's still your code to control.
--
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:
>> Firstly, you understand that by giving the FSF the copyright, you've
>> given them permission to prevent you from releasing your own code with
>> a different license, right?
>
> Yes, and I'm pretty sure all GPL contributors willing to do so,
> including commercial entities, are well aware of it.
>
>> Copyright is the right to restrict others from copying your work. It's
>> not the right to copy it, but to prevent others from doing so.
>
> [...] The copyright holder
> of the original GPL'd code is still the same,
Not if you've given the copyright to the FSF.
> but what does this mean
> when he explicitely grants others the right to use, copy and modify it?
That he can prevent you from copying it.
> The only power left to FSF is if they suddenly change from a foundation
> to a corporation and license the body of GNU software under a
> restrictive commercial license
Yep. Not that I'm saying they will. I'm just pointing out that the assertion
that the original author can always dual-license the code is incorrect if
you've turned the copyright over to the FSF.
--
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:
> The FSF is looking for technological mechanisms
> to force you to GPL the code that you wrote entirely from scratch
> yourself without modifying or incorporating any other GPL code. They're
> not respecting my wishes about how I want to distribute *my* original
> code
Your gcc plugin code would only exist in the first place as an extension
for gcc, so without gcc, there would be no plugin of yours. So, why
would you even write a plugin for gcc in the first place?
If the GPL alone would be able to restrict it in this way, you wouldn't
enjoy it either, so what motivations would you have to submit any code
at all to help promote and spread a project purpoting the evil GPL license?
Non sequitur...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> If everything I can do with software A I can also do with software B,
> but there are some things I can do with B that I can't do with A, then B
> is more free than A.
You're right. MIT is more free than GPL is.
> GPL isn't there to make *my* code free. It's there to make free the code
> of people who improve GPLed code.
Very true.
> The brainwashing in this case is to
> make people think that if I improve your code, then it's still your code
> to control.
I don't think I get it what you mean.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>>> Firstly, you understand that by giving the FSF the copyright, you've
>>> given them permission to prevent you from releasing your own code
>>> with a different license, right?
>>
>> Yes, and I'm pretty sure all GPL contributors willing to do so,
>> including commercial entities, are well aware of it.
>>
>>> Copyright is the right to restrict others from copying your work.
>>> It's not the right to copy it, but to prevent others from doing so.
>>
>> [...] The copyright holder
>> of the original GPL'd code is still the same,
>
> Not if you've given the copyright to the FSF.
It was exactly about the FSF I was talking about, following from the gcc
case.
>> but what does this mean when he explicitely grants others the right to
>> use, copy and modify it?
>
> That he can prevent you from copying it.
No, he can't because he explicitely stated otherwise by abiding by the
GPL terms.
He can, as copyright owner, license it all under another license and
begin anew, even closed source, from there on with worthy improvements
to the code, just as some commercial entity can take away a MIT project
and do the same. The original GPLed code can't be closed by anyone,
like MIT code.
>> The only power left to FSF is if they suddenly change from a
>> foundation to a corporation and license the body of GNU software under
>> a restrictive commercial license
>
> Yep. Not that I'm saying they will. I'm just pointing out that the
> assertion that the original author can always dual-license the code is
> incorrect if you've turned the copyright over to the FSF.
The majority of GPL'd code out there is not GNU and copyrights are
retained by the original authors, which is what really fuels GPL
projects, since everyone benefits from collaborative development and
still retain their copyrights in face of leechers.
If you're willing to donate code patches to the FSF though, you are well
aware of the consequences and are willing to take the risk perhaps
because you think it'll be of benefit for everyone, including yourself
(like, others can take the burden of maintaining the software, even your
changes). Even though Stallman may end up being nothing more than a
evil leecher and a hypocrite. I believe it's more likely though that
he'll be assaulted by ninjas...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
>> The brainwashing in this case is to make people think that if I
>> improve your code, then it's still your code to control.
>
> I don't think I get it what you mean.
You conflate "my code, with your code added" to be the same as "my code".
The GPL isn't "more free" than the MIT license. It's just letting you
exercise different control over the code you wrote yourself. You can prevent
me from distributing your code in ways you don't like, but that's true of
every license.
The thing that's "getting ridiculous" is when people go out of their way to
apply the GPL to *your* code when it *isn't* a derivative of any GPLed code.
See how that works?
--
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 escreveu:
>> The FSF is looking for technological mechanisms
>> to force you to GPL the code that you wrote entirely from scratch
>> yourself without modifying or incorporating any other GPL code.
>> They're not respecting my wishes about how I want to distribute *my*
>> original code
>
> Your gcc plugin code would only exist in the first place as an extension
> for gcc, so without gcc, there would be no plugin of yours.
This is not true. Someone else may write a gcc-compatible compiler. Or it
may be a large codebase that works for any compiler, and I want it to work
for gcc also.
In any case, that's irrelevant. If gcc plug-ins fell under the GPL, they
wouldn't need technological mechanisms to prevent them from working when
they aren't GPLed, would they? The fact that it interoperates with gcc
doesn't mean they're respecting my wishes for how I want to license my code,
does it?
> So, why
> would you even write a plugin for gcc in the first place?
And my Linux application wouldn't exist if I didn't have Linux to run it
under. Does that mean my application is GPLed? My apache module wouldn't
exist if apache wasn't around. Does that mean my module is GPLed? My PSQL
stored procedures wouldn't exist if PSQL wasn't around. That doesn't make my
stored procedures GPLed.
If every Linux application you wrote was required to use the GPL, would you
find software companies like Adobe porting their software to it?
> If the GPL alone would be able to restrict it in this way, you wouldn't
> enjoy it either, so what motivations would you have to submit any code
> at all to help promote and spread a project purpoting the evil GPL license?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
You can certainly license code with a license that says "if you use this
compiler, everything you compile with it belongs to us." As you say, people
don't do that, because people wouldn't use the compiler if they did.
I find it interesting that in the areas where FSF *is* the leader, they wind
up acting like monopolists.
--
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:
>> Not if you've given the copyright to the FSF.
> It was exactly about the FSF I was talking about, following from the gcc
> case.
I was referring to the concept that "the original author can always
dual-license it." That isn't true if the copyright has been given to FSF.
> The original GPLed code can't be closed by anyone, like MIT code.
Original MIT code can't be closed by anyone either.
> The majority of GPL'd code out there is not GNU and copyrights are
> retained by the original authors, which is what really fuels GPL
> projects, since everyone benefits from collaborative development and
> still retain their copyrights in face of leechers.
>
> If you're willing to donate code patches to the FSF though, you are well
> aware of the consequences and are willing to take the risk perhaps
> because you think it'll be of benefit for everyone, including yourself
> (like, others can take the burden of maintaining the software, even your
> changes). Even though Stallman may end up being nothing more than a
> evil leecher and a hypocrite. I believe it's more likely though that
> he'll be assaulted by ninjas...
I agree with all of this. My disapproval is of the attempts to take code
from people that doesn't fall under the GPL and doesn't contain any code of
a GPLed project, and force them to release it under the 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: This GPL stuff is getting ridiculous
Date: 30 Jan 2009 13:50:34
Message: <49834bfa@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:46:12 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:22:27 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> This makes GPL incompatible with all other licenses. This is
>>>>> rather
>>>>> restricting.
>>>> But protective of the rights of the original author, which is the
>>>> underlying goal.
>>> Which original author? The one giving away the code with more
>>> restrictions, or the one giving away the code with fewer restrictions?
>>
>> The one who wrote the code that you are modifying and then
>> distributing.
>
> What makes you think I'm modifying the GPL code?
>
> If I include libjpg without modifying it at all, I can no longer use the
> MIT license on my code, even if my code is orders of magnitude larger
> and more valuable. This forces me, while building something large that I
> need to get paid for, to rewrite code that's already tested and works
> well and is bug-free and safe. Hence, GPL code leads to bugs in non-GPL
> code.
You can link to GPL libraries. There are plenty of examples of this.
What you cannot do is incorporate GPL-licensed code into non-GPL licensed
code.
There is, AFAIK, one single exception - if you own the code, you can dual-
license it. There are also plenty of examples of this.
There's nothing that says you can't get paid for writing GPL code. There
are also also plenty of examples of this.
But if you're building something large and you want to leverage code
others have written, you have to respect their license terms (whatever
that license is, not just if it's GPL).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:46:27 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> So you said "The GPL only affects those who modify the code." This is
> factually wrong, as evidenced by my example.
No, it's not factually wrong.
I just purchased X-Plane 9. It uses openAL, openGL and a slew of other
libraries.
X-Plane is a proprietary software package that links to these libraries
which IIRC are licensed under the GPL.
If Austin (the author of X-Plane) had incorporated the libraries into his
binary by compiling the code as part, then yes, he would've had to
license his whole software package under the GPL. He didn't and he's
within the requirements of using GPL libraries.
The argument about "linking means you have to release your code under the
GPL" has been disproven time and time again.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> I was referring to the concept that "the original author can always
> dual-license it." That isn't true if the copyright has been given to FSF.
True. Perhaps I should've written "the copyright owner can always
dual-license it", but that would lead to further ambiguity, like in the
case of someone submitting code to a large project only to find out it
really wouldn't matter to dual code his lone little patch. What sense
does it make to release it in, say, a closed-source license, something
that is but a little part of a far larger GPL'd whole and which wouldn't
exist independently of it?
>> The original GPLed code can't be closed by anyone, like MIT code.
>
> Original MIT code can't be closed by anyone either.
I thought I said that in that very sentence, but now reading it looks
ambiguous, yes. Sorry.
> I agree with all of this. My disapproval is of the attempts to take code
> from people that doesn't fall under the GPL and doesn't contain any code
> of a GPLed project, and force them to release it under the GPL.
It doesn't force anyone any more than the GPL forces everyone to use Linux.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson escreveu:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:46:27 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>
>> So you said "The GPL only affects those who modify the code." This is
>> factually wrong, as evidenced by my example.
>
> No, it's not factually wrong.
>
> I just purchased X-Plane 9. It uses openAL, openGL and a slew of other
> libraries.
>
> X-Plane is a proprietary software package that links to these libraries
> which IIRC are licensed under the GPL.
>
> If Austin (the author of X-Plane) had incorporated the libraries into his
> binary by compiling the code as part, then yes, he would've had to
> license his whole software package under the GPL. He didn't and he's
> within the requirements of using GPL libraries.
>
> The argument about "linking means you have to release your code under the
> GPL" has been disproven time and time again.
Hmm, this sounds weird. You mean dynamic linking an app against a GPL
lib doesn't require one to GPL the app code as well? If so, what's the
point of the LGPL?
And I didn't know OpenGL was GPL'd. In fact, it's a specification only.
Are you talking about the mesa lib?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> You can link to GPL libraries. There are plenty of examples of this.
Then what's the LGPL for?
Note that OpenAL is apparently LGPL, so it specifically says you can link to
it without invoking the GPL.
> What you cannot do is incorporate GPL-licensed code into non-GPL licensed
> code.
Define "incorporate"? Look at the first paragraph of
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
It doesn't sound like the FSF agrees with you.
> There is, AFAIK, one single exception - if you own the code, you can dual-
> license it.
Unless it's a plug-in for GCC.
> But if you're building something large and you want to leverage code
> others have written, you have to respect their license terms (whatever
> that license is, not just if it's GPL).
Agreed. I'm not arguing the GPL is a bad thing, even. I'm simply pointing
out that a lot of the slogans promoted by FSF supporters are wrong.
The gcc changes aren't aimed at making sure the plug-ins are "free
software". They're aimed at making sure the plug-ins are "copyleft".
--
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:
> True. Perhaps I should've written "the copyright owner can always
> dual-license it", but that would lead to further ambiguity, like in the
> case of someone submitting code to a large project only to find out it
> really wouldn't matter to dual code his lone little patch. What sense
> does it make to release it in, say, a closed-source license, something
> that is but a little part of a far larger GPL'd whole and which wouldn't
> exist independently of it?
It doesn't. I don't think anyone would complain that a patch to the
internals of the Linux kernel won't get incorporated unless they too are GPLed.
It's major functionalities, like, say, plug-ins, that people might want to
dual-license.
>>> The original GPLed code can't be closed by anyone, like MIT code.
>>
>> Original MIT code can't be closed by anyone either.
>
> I thought I said that in that very sentence, but now reading it looks
> ambiguous, yes. Sorry.
I see.
>> I agree with all of this. My disapproval is of the attempts to take
>> code from people that doesn't fall under the GPL and doesn't contain
>> any code of a GPLed project, and force them to release it under the GPL.
>
> It doesn't force anyone any more than the GPL forces everyone to use Linux.
No, the GPL doesn't. But that's exactly what the FSF is trying to do for gcc
plug-ins. Remember where the thread started? Did you read the article that
was linked? The article was specifically "how can the FSF force gcc plug-ins
to be released as GPL even if they don't incorporate any GPLed 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:
> Hmm, this sounds weird. You mean dynamic linking an app against a GPL
> lib doesn't require one to GPL the app code as well? If so, what's the
> point of the LGPL?
>
> And I didn't know OpenGL was GPL'd. In fact, it's a specification only.
> Are you talking about the mesa lib?
OpenAL is also LGPL, as far as I can tell. (They don't actually put the
license on the web site anywhere.) You'd think fsf.org would have a FAQ
section too, or at least have links to the actual licenses off the home page
somewhere.
--
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:
> nemesis wrote:
>> extension for gcc, so without gcc, there would be no plugin of yours.
>
> This is not true. Someone else may write a gcc-compatible compiler.
Down to the devious plugin architecture?! I think Duke Nukem Forever
and HURD are released first, or Wine 2.0 is Vista compatible.
> it may be a large codebase that works for any compiler, and I want it to
> work for gcc also.
Why? You don't like the damned GPL stuff, remember? Why help spread
it? Why not tell your users that if they want said functionality
they'll need to use other, possibly better and unrestricted compiler?
>> So, why would you even write a plugin for gcc in the first place?
>
> And my Linux application wouldn't exist if I didn't have Linux to run it
> under. Does that mean my application is GPLed? My apache module wouldn't
> exist if apache wasn't around. Does that mean my module is GPLed? My
> PSQL stored procedures wouldn't exist if PSQL wasn't around. That
> doesn't make my stored procedures GPLed.
Of course, none of those projects require your code to be GPLed. GCC
will, and not by the GPL.
BTW, all your examples do not constitute a single program running in the
same process space, they are very different from app and lib or plugin.
> If every Linux application you wrote was required to use the GPL, would
> you find software companies like Adobe porting their software to it?
You talk like as if the plugin is an external app running in a "gcc
kernel space".
> You can certainly license code with a license that says "if you use this
> compiler, everything you compile with it belongs to us." As you say,
> people don't do that, because people wouldn't use the compiler if they did.
GCC doesn't say that, so I don't know how the example is any pertinent.
> I find it interesting that in the areas where FSF *is* the leader, they
> wind up acting like monopolists.
Like in areas where they are actually the original developers of GNU
software? Yeah, sound as bad as Apache...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New escreveu:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> extension for gcc, so without gcc, there would be no plugin of yours.
>>
>> This is not true. Someone else may write a gcc-compatible compiler.
>
> Down to the devious plugin architecture?!
Someone may write a word processor compatible down to the undocumented
binary file format?!?
Maybe someone likes your gcc plug-in so much they want you to port it to
*their* compiler. Whoops, sorry! You can't!
>> it may be a large codebase that works for any compiler, and I want it
>> to work for gcc also.
>
> Why? You don't like the damned GPL stuff, remember?
I didn't say that. I said I don't always like what it does to my employment,
and I said I don't like how the FSF is trying to force unrelated software to
be GPLed. But most of the developer tools are pretty nice.
> BTW, all your examples do not constitute a single program running in the
> same process space, they are very different from app and lib or plugin.
I'm not sure what "single address space" has to do with it. Certainly my
program runs in the same address space as the Linux kernel, or the Linux
kernel wouldn't be able to fill my buffers with data when I call read().
>> If every Linux application you wrote was required to use the GPL,
>> would you find software companies like Adobe porting their software to
>> it?
>
> You talk like as if the plugin is an external app running in a "gcc
> kernel space".
It is, as much as FLASH is. It's an "external app" in that it doesn't
incorporate any of the code from GCC into itself.
>> You can certainly license code with a license that says "if you use
>> this compiler, everything you compile with it belongs to us." As you
>> say, people don't do that, because people wouldn't use the compiler if
>> they did.
>
> GCC doesn't say that, so I don't know how the example is any pertinent.
Right. I was trying to explain *why* it doesn't say that, even tho it could
say that with at least as much authority as the plug-in architecture could.
>> I find it interesting that in the areas where FSF *is* the leader,
>> they wind up acting like monopolists.
>
> Like in areas where they are actually the original developers of GNU
> software?
No, like in areas where the product is so good it has pushed most
competitors out. Like, Sun shipping the gcc compiler instead of continuing
to improve their own.
--
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:
> You can
> prevent me from distributing your code in ways you don't like, but
> that's true of every license.
What isn't true of every license is that it lets you use software for
any purposes *or* modify or make it as basis for other software as long
as you release it all under the same license too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: This GPL stuff is getting ridiculous
Date: 30 Jan 2009 15:20:12
Message: <498360fc@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:32:19 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> You can link to GPL libraries. There are plenty of examples of this.
>
> Then what's the LGPL for?
Provides some additional options.
> Note that OpenAL is apparently LGPL, so it specifically says you can
> link to it without invoking the GPL.
Yes, but again, linking to something that's GPL'ed doesn't mean your
program has to be GPL'ed. I used OpenAL as an example, probably not the
best example given that it is LGPL.
>> What you cannot do is incorporate GPL-licensed code into non-GPL
>> licensed code.
>
> Define "incorporate"? Look at the first paragraph of
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
I write this:
void main(void)
{
puts("do something here");
/* Call a bunch of other functions */
}
You write code and you use some/all of my code in your code. My code is
released under the GPL, now yours must be as well because you're using
the source code I wrote in your code/product.
> It doesn't sound like the FSF agrees with you.
>
>> There is, AFAIK, one single exception - if you own the code, you can
>> dual- license it.
>
> Unless it's a plug-in for GCC.
Well, argue that with the GNU foundation, I would agree that the root of
this debate is suspicious. It seems, though, they're trying to do
something similar to the Linux kernel's "tainted" flag with the compiler,
but pushing it to a new level.
>> But if you're building something large and you want to leverage code
>> others have written, you have to respect their license terms (whatever
>> that license is, not just if it's GPL).
>
> Agreed. I'm not arguing the GPL is a bad thing, even. I'm simply
> pointing out that a lot of the slogans promoted by FSF supporters are
> wrong.
>
> The gcc changes aren't aimed at making sure the plug-ins are "free
> software". They're aimed at making sure the plug-ins are "copyleft".
Well, as the authors of gcc, surely they have the right to extend the
license terms in whatever way they see fit.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:49834830$1@news.povray.org...
> The thing that's "getting ridiculous" is when people go out of their way
to
> apply the GPL to *your* code when it *isn't* a derivative of any GPLed
code.
> See how that works?
No, I don't. How is it even possible for *others* to GPL *your* code? It's
only you who can do that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:19:54 -0200, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson escreveu:
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:46:27 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> So you said "The GPL only affects those who modify the code." This is
>>> factually wrong, as evidenced by my example.
>>
>> No, it's not factually wrong.
>>
>> I just purchased X-Plane 9. It uses openAL, openGL and a slew of other
>> libraries.
>>
>> X-Plane is a proprietary software package that links to these libraries
>> which IIRC are licensed under the GPL.
>>
>> If Austin (the author of X-Plane) had incorporated the libraries into
>> his binary by compiling the code as part, then yes, he would've had to
>> license his whole software package under the GPL. He didn't and he's
>> within the requirements of using GPL libraries.
>>
>> The argument about "linking means you have to release your code under
>> the GPL" has been disproven time and time again.
>
> Hmm, this sounds weird. You mean dynamic linking an app against a GPL
> lib doesn't require one to GPL the app code as well? If so, what's the
> point of the LGPL?
I don't believe it does. But I've not done an in-depth look at the
differences between GPL and LGPL. I have read a lot of discussions about
it, though.
> And I didn't know OpenGL was GPL'd. In fact, it's a specification only.
> Are you talking about the mesa lib?
D'oh! Yes, Mesa is what I'm talking about, it provides libGL. However,
Mesa is X11/MIT licensed.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:40:31 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Hmm, this sounds weird. You mean dynamic linking an app against a GPL
>> lib doesn't require one to GPL the app code as well? If so, what's the
>> point of the LGPL?
>>
>> And I didn't know OpenGL was GPL'd. In fact, it's a specification
>> only.
>> Are you talking about the mesa lib?
>
> OpenAL is also LGPL, as far as I can tell. (They don't actually put the
> license on the web site anywhere.) You'd think fsf.org would have a FAQ
> section too, or at least have links to the actual licenses off the home
> page somewhere.
LGPL 2.1 or later according to my RPM package.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> No, I don't. How is it even possible for *others* to GPL *your* code? It's
> only you who can do that.
OK, I'll assume you didn't read the link that started the thread, then. Thanks.
--
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:
> LGPL 2.1 or later according to my RPM package.
And GPL != LGPL. LGPL is GPL plus ability to use the library unmodified in
commercial applications. The GPL doesn't allow you to link to unmodified GPL
code and use it in your own program.
--
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:
> Yes, but again, linking to something that's GPL'ed doesn't mean your
> program has to be GPL'ed.
I'm pretty sure it does, yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception
Why would you need "a linking exception to the GPL" if the GPL didn't infect
linked software?
> void main(void)
> {
> puts("do something here");
> /* Call a bunch of other functions */
> }
>
> You write code and you use some/all of my code in your code.
If I'm using your "main", it's arguably your program. :-)
> My code is
> released under the GPL, now yours must be as well because you're using
> the source code I wrote in your code/product.
What if I take some of the "bunch of other functions" you wrote that you
provided in a separate library, which I don't need to modify at all to
invoke from my program? That's what we're talking about.
> something similar to the Linux kernel's "tainted" flag with the compiler,
> but pushing it to a new level.
Yes.
>> The gcc changes aren't aimed at making sure the plug-ins are "free
>> software". They're aimed at making sure the plug-ins are "copyleft".
>
> Well, as the authors of gcc, surely they have the right to extend the
> license terms in whatever way they see fit.
Sure. But if the license already covered plug-ins, they wouldn't need to
extend it. The owners of the Linux copyright could change the license to say
you're not allowed to run any proprietary software under Linux, and you
can't run Linux on any machine that had ever had Windows installed, too.
That doesn't mean it's a *good* thing. I'm not denying their *ability* to
do this.
--
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 12:53:17 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yes, but again, linking to something that's GPL'ed doesn't mean your
>> program has to be GPL'ed.
>
> I'm pretty sure it does, yes.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception
>
> Why would you need "a linking exception to the GPL" if the GPL didn't
> infect linked software?
This is contrary to other discussions I've read on the topic.
>> void main(void)
>> {
>> puts("do something here");
>> /* Call a bunch of other functions */
>> }
>>
>> You write code and you use some/all of my code in your code.
>
> If I'm using your "main", it's arguably your program. :-)
Yes.
>> My code is
>> released under the GPL, now yours must be as well because you're using
>> the source code I wrote in your code/product.
>
> What if I take some of the "bunch of other functions" you wrote that you
> provided in a separate library, which I don't need to modify at all to
> invoke from my program? That's what we're talking about.
If you include code I wrote in your code, then you have to respect my
wishes about the use of the code.
>> something similar to the Linux kernel's "tainted" flag with the
>> compiler, but pushing it to a new level.
>
> Yes.
>>> The gcc changes aren't aimed at making sure the plug-ins are "free
>>> software". They're aimed at making sure the plug-ins are "copyleft".
>>
>> Well, as the authors of gcc, surely they have the right to extend the
>> license terms in whatever way they see fit.
>
> Sure. But if the license already covered plug-ins, they wouldn't need to
> extend it. The owners of the Linux copyright could change the license to
> say you're not allowed to run any proprietary software under Linux, and
> you can't run Linux on any machine that had ever had Windows installed,
> too. That doesn't mean it's a *good* thing. I'm not denying their
> *ability* to do this.
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.
Someone very likely will fork an older version of the code (pre-stupid-
restrictions) and "the market" (whatever that means) will decide whether
the stupid restrictions are worth the hassle or not.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> somebody wrote:
> > No, I don't. How is it even possible for *others* to GPL *your* code? It's
> > only you who can do that.
>
> OK, I'll assume you didn't read the link that started the thread, then. Thanks.
Don't be naive, Darren. He's telling it's your choice to write and release a
plugin for GCC under the GPL. You can simply give them the finger, fork it,
start from scratch or use the intel compiler.
Which BTW is free for *use* (but not modification) as long as it isn't *used*
for commercial work, like the free compiler from Microsoft too. Which reminds
me that this is an important distinction for the word *use* indeed. Use of
software always reminds me of users, not software developers trying to "use" it
as the secret engine of their closed app...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4983674a$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > No, I don't. How is it even possible for *others* to GPL *your* code?
It's
> > only you who can do that.
> OK, I'll assume you didn't read the link that started the thread, then.
Thanks.
Don't assume. You want to release code mixed with GPL code, but don't want
to be bothered by respecting the licensing terms of the authors who came
before you, created that piece of code you find irresistible to use, and
GPL'ed their work. Don't know how I can help you there, but here are your
options:
1) Write your own code from the ground up. Pick whichever license makes you
happy.
2) Don't release code which is based on or interfacing with GPL'ed code. You
can still use it for personal needs.
3) Respect the GPL license of the authors whose code you are using, and
contribute your code as GPL.
4) Don't write any code at all, become a used car salesman.
Notice how "have your cake and eat it too" is not a legitimate option.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:49833f8f$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > That is a matter of opinion, and how you define "free".
> I don't think so. I think there's a very easy metric.
>
> If everything I can do with software A I can also do with software B, but
> there are some things I can do with B that I can't do with A, then B is
more
> free than A.
From your POV. From the POV of all developers taken as a whole, or from the
POV of the original authors, code that's infectuously free may be more free
than code that's currently free.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> somebody wrote:
>>> No, I don't. How is it even possible for *others* to GPL *your* code? It's
>>> only you who can do that.
>> OK, I'll assume you didn't read the link that started the thread, then. Thanks.
>
> Don't be naive, Darren.
I'm not. I'm saying that if I write a plug-in for GCC and release it, it'll
break if it's not GPLed. I don't know how that isn't the FSF making me
release my code as GPLed in practice.
But, we've clearly reached the end of any reasonable conversation about the
topic now.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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! I want to
release code that I wrote 100% myself that includes no source or object code
that anyone else has written. And the FSF is trying to find a way to force
me to release that as GPL by crippling their own software.
> 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?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
