http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/27/223230

http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_Plugins

Some of the stuff in the wiki sounded like DRM.

"A gcc-based scripting interpreter could by default check for a mandatory
license statement (header) in every source file, so that "stock gcc" could
deny running plugins (scripts) with a non-matching license header/marker
telling the user that stock gcc only runs plugin scripts covered by the
GPL"

"Couldn't the plugin interface require a copyrighted passphrase to be sent
by the plugin when it registeres, and the passphrase can then be licensed
under the GPL. Thus, plugins that want to interface with an official FSF
gcc will have to be GPLed in order to talk to the plugin interface, and we
don't need to tinker with the runtime licensing."

What?!? That's similar to what TiVo did, which made the FSF come up with a
whole new GPL version. And now they want to use the same kind of strategy
to make sure plugins are GPL??

Post a reply to this message

Play our way or not at all.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

The FSF is quite draconian in their policies.  In fact, the latest 
efforts seem to be just as DRM infected as any closed system.

...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:497fd2c3@news.povray.org...

> http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/27/223230
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_Plugins

> What?!? That's similar to what TiVo did, which made the FSF come up with a
> whole new GPL version. And now they want to use the same kind of strategy
> to make sure plugins are GPL??

Why is it surprising, duplicituous or outrageous that software authors want
to enforce their licenses, be it commercial or free and/or open source? FSF
is not an anti-license organization, it just promotes a different kind of
license than commercial. That doesn't mean similar techniques cannot be
employed to try to enforce the license and/or prosecute infractions.

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:497fd2c3@news.povray.org...
>
> > http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/27/223230
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_Plugins
>
> > What?!? That's similar to what TiVo did, which made the FSF come up with a
> > whole new GPL version. And now they want to use the same kind of strategy
> > to make sure plugins are GPL??
>
> Why is it surprising, duplicituous or outrageous that software authors want
> to enforce their licenses, be it commercial or free and/or open source? FSF
> is not an anti-license organization, it just promotes a different kind of
> license than commercial.

Yes, the GPL is fully copyright-based.  It's not public domain and you own the
rights to your contribution throughout.  It's just that through that license
you promote and allow your licensed work to be used and modified by others, as
long as they don't try to pull a smarty and deny others that same right.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> The FSF is quite draconian in their policies.  In fact, the latest
> efforts seem to be just as DRM infected as any closed system.

Except freedoms are preserved rather than taken away.  You're still free to use
it in *any way* you want.  And if you want to modify it for yourself or your
organization.  You just have to comply to the GPL way if you later want to ship
that modified work, in which case the GPL is enforced so that you don't deny
others the same rights the GPL offered you.  Fair enough.

I understand all this backslash against GPL is pretty much the same all
successful things get one time in the height of their lifes, like Seinfeld or
Pixar.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> I understand all this backslash against GPL is pretty much the same all
> successful things get one time in the height of their lifes, like Seinfeld
> or Pixar.

I'm not against GPL (I contribute to a LGPL project regularly and my own
projects are GPL when and if they get out of my computer). I'm against
DRM-like measures in GNU software.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:

> Play our way or not at all.
> 

And that is why I'm very careful about the source of code for my 
projects. I don't want to be forcefully bound to releasing source code, 
even if I'm considering sharing the source any way.

(Like I've ever released a project. Oh, yeah .. my game.. That was about 
it.)

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez escreveu:
> I'm not against GPL (I contribute to a LGPL project regularly and my own
> projects are GPL when and if they get out of my computer). I'm against
> DRM-like measures in GNU software.

Those "DRM-like measures" don't take away the freedoms of anyone anymore 
than current GPL:  people wanting it for proprietary projects without 
source code sharing are still out, as they've always been.

These plugins for GCC are not like plugins for Firefox.  Despite both in 
a sense providing extended functionality for the open-source projects, a 
Flash player depends entirely on Flash content on the web, not on 
specific Firefox resources, while a plugin for gcc would be eager to use 
data, structures and functions provided by the core compiler.  It's 
really just code that should be in the compiler that was outsourced, so 
it must be GPL too.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:17:59 -0200, nemesis wrote:

> people wanting it for proprietary projects without source code sharing
> are still out, as they've always been.

As I understand it, that's not strictly true.  If you don't distribute 
your modified program, you're not obligated to submit your changes 
upstream or to distribute your modified code.  Sharing the code becomes a 
requirement only if you distribute your modified version of the program.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Those "DRM-like measures" don't take away the freedoms of anyone anymore 
> than current GPL:  people wanting it for proprietary projects without 
> source code sharing are still out, as they've always been.

Any additional condition on something takes away more freedom.  Even if it 
expands options, it's still reducing *freedom*, in the raw chaos sense.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Except freedoms are preserved rather than taken away.  You're still free to use
> it in *any way* you want.  And if you want to modify it for yourself or your
> organization.  You just have to comply to the GPL way if you later want to ship
> that modified work, in which case the GPL is enforced so that you don't deny
> others the same rights the GPL offered you.

  There's a contradiction in there.

  If you *have to* comply to something before you can distribute, that
nullifies the claim that you are free to use it in *any way* you want.

  GPL is, in fact, rather restrictive. For example, if I make a project
under, let's say, the MIT license, I have to make extra sure that I don't
include *any* GPL'd code in it because that would be againt the GPL license.

  If I wanted to use the GPL'd code, I would have to change from the MIT
license to the GPL license, which is more restrictive.

  Just the fact that you can include MIT-licensed code in a GPL-licensed
program but not the other way around tells a lot about which license is
more "free".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> It's just that through that license
> you promote and allow your licensed work to be used and modified by others, as
> long as they don't try to pull a smarty and deny others that same right.

  GPL goes beyond that. It prohibits you from using GPL'd code in a program
under some other license, even if that other license would be as free as
(or even more free than) GPL. Just because it's *not* GPL is enough for it
to be inadmissible, regardless of what kind of license it would be.

  This makes GPL incompatible with all other licenses. This is rather
restricting.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Those "DRM-like measures" don't take away the freedoms of anyone 
>> anymore than current GPL:  people wanting it for proprietary projects 
>> without source code sharing are still out, as they've always been.
> 
> Any additional condition on something takes away more freedom.

It's taking away *your* freedom to give more freedom to someone else. Just 
like every freedom does.

-- 
   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:
> Yes, the GPL is fully copyright-based.  It's not public domain and you own the
> rights to your contribution throughout.  It's just that through that license
> you promote and allow your licensed work to be used and modified by others, as
> long as they don't try to pull a smarty and deny others that same right.

Except we're talking about plug-ins here, which by their very definition are 
an independent part of the program. Which is to say, FSF wouldn't be talking 
about technical ways of enforcing plug-in authors to write GPLed plug-ins if 
there was a legal reason the GPL extended to the plug-ins. They're trying to
make it impossible to distribute your own completely independent code under
a license less restrictive (or more) than the GPL, by making the compiler 
not load the plug-in unless the plug-in is GPLed.

I don't see this as very different from TiVo giving away the program but not 
the encryption keys that make it work on their own hardware. TiVo wanted to 
sell you the hardware and have you use TiVo's software on it. If you built 
your own hardware, you could also use TiVo's software on it. FSF got freaked 
they couldn't run their own software on TiVo's hardware. Now they're getting 
freaked that you *can* run proprietary plug-ins on GPLed compilers. Same 
thing, really.

-- 
   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 escreveu:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:17:59 -0200, nemesis wrote:
> 
>> people wanting it for proprietary projects without source code sharing
>> are still out, as they've always been.
> 
> As I understand it, that's not strictly true.  If you don't distribute 
> your modified program, you're not obligated to submit your changes 
> upstream or to distribute your modified code.  Sharing the code becomes a 
> requirement only if you distribute your modified version of the program.

Yes, I believe I stated that somewhere in this thread before.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:03:33 -0200, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson escreveu:
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:17:59 -0200, nemesis wrote:
>> 
>>> people wanting it for proprietary projects without source code sharing
>>> are still out, as they've always been.
>> 
>> As I understand it, that's not strictly true.  If you don't distribute
>> your modified program, you're not obligated to submit your changes
>> upstream or to distribute your modified code.  Sharing the code becomes
>> a requirement only if you distribute your modified version of the
>> program.
> 
> Yes, I believe I stated that somewhere in this thread before.

Quite possibly, I haven't read all the messages in-depth. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:21:04 -0500, Warp wrote:

> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> It's just that through that license
>> you promote and allow your licensed work to be used and modified by
>> others, as long as they don't try to pull a smarty and deny others that
>> same right.
> 
>   GPL goes beyond that. It prohibits you from using GPL'd code in a
>   program
> under some other license, even if that other license would be as free as
> (or even more free than) GPL. Just because it's *not* GPL is enough for
> it to be inadmissible, regardless of what kind of license it would be.
> 
>   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.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> Those "DRM-like measures" don't take away the freedoms of anyone 
>>> anymore than current GPL:  people wanting it for proprietary projects 
>>> without source code sharing are still out, as they've always been.
>>
>> Any additional condition on something takes away more freedom.
> 
> It's taking away *your* freedom to give more freedom to someone else. 
> Just like every freedom does.

The GPL is not there to take away freedom to use and modify the software 
from anyone.  It's stated like it is exactly *to ensure* no one is 
allowed to take away such freedom.  It does that by requiring you to 
share the source for the modifications and put it under the GPL as well 
if you release the modified software.  So yes, it is a viral license in 
this sense.  But it's not like an HIV virus, more like a retrovirus 
carrying vaccines into an ill organism... :)

If you want a completely permissive and unrestricted license where 
anyone can use the code for any purpose, even bettering upon it and not 
disclosing the modifications and releasing it under some big hype 
machine until the original open-source project/code looses all interest 
to most people, then BSD or public domain is the way to go.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> The GPL is not there to take away freedom to use and modify the software 
> from anyone.  

I didn't say it did.

> It's stated like it is exactly *to ensure* no one is 
> allowed to take away such freedom.

I didn't say it wasn't.

I said it takes freedoms away from one person to give more freedoms to other 
people, just like every freedom does. Your freedom to not be punched in the 
nose restricts my freedom to punch you in the nose.

Then what freedom does it add to the author to force his plug-in to be open 
source and licensed under the GPL?   How does that benefit anyone who wants 
to use the plug-in without modification?

-- 
   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:
>>   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?

-- 
   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 escreveu:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Except freedoms are preserved rather than taken away.  You're still free to use
>> it in *any way* you want.  And if you want to modify it for yourself or your
>> organization.  You just have to comply to the GPL way if you later want to ship
>> that modified work, in which case the GPL is enforced so that you don't deny
>> others the same rights the GPL offered you.
> 
>   There's a contradiction in there.
> 
>   If you *have to* comply to something before you can distribute, that
> nullifies the claim that you are free to use it in *any way* you want.

True.  But I stated my claims in 3 ways:  first about usage (you can use 
GPLed software in anyway you see fit), second about private 
modifications (no need to release modified souce code under GPL) and 
third about released modified GPLed work.  No contradiction when in context.

>   GPL is, in fact, rather restrictive. For example, if I make a project
> under, let's say, the MIT license, I have to make extra sure that I don't
> include *any* GPL'd code in it because that would be againt the GPL license.

True.

>   Just the fact that you can include MIT-licensed code in a GPL-licensed
> program but not the other way around tells a lot about which license is
> more "free".

The MIT/BSD license does nothing to protect such freedom.

If a MIT open-source project stales and dies out and all hosts of the 
original code die out and only survivor of said original code is a 
heavily modified closed software that led that project to die out by 
providing proper marketing and more developers to make it a much better 
product, then you are... well, screwed?

And if you were one of the contributors of code and patches to that 
software and later realizes Microsoft or Adobe using it in their closed 
products without any acknowledgement (let alone royalties) and pissing 
and laughing on your grave, you are screwed too.

The GPL protects the code from gettting trapped into a closed product 
and also the rights of the original developers to it.

It's more restrictive because it must make sure code remains free to use 
and modify.  I take it over any permissive license anyday.

Post a reply to this message

Warp escreveu:
>   This makes GPL incompatible with all other licenses. This is rather
> restricting.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

Apache and Boost are among them.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> Except we're talking about plug-ins here, which by their very definition 
> are an independent part of the program.

Yes, see my answer to Nicolas above.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> Your freedom to not be 
> punched in the nose restricts my freedom to punch you in the nose.

I feel that freedom is in risk right now. ;)

> Then what freedom does it add to the author to force his plug-in to be 
> open source and licensed under the GPL?

The freedom to use the gcc infrastructure for the benefit of his plugin.

> How does that benefit anyone 
> who wants to use the plug-in without modification?

The GPL allows for unrestricted *use*, for any means.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> If a MIT open-source project stales and dies out and all hosts of the 
> original code die out and only survivor of said original code is a 
> heavily modified closed software that led that project to die out by 
> providing proper marketing and more developers to make it a much better 
> product, then you are... well, screwed?

No. You're using the much better product. Or you have a copy of the source 
of an unimproved program. Why would all copies of an MIT-licensed source be 
more likely to disappear than all copies of a GPL-licensed source?

All you're saying is that the GPL prevents anyone from dedicating enough 
resources to make it worth paying money for? ;-)


> And if you were one of the contributors of code and patches to that 
> software and later realizes Microsoft or Adobe using it in their closed 
> products without any acknowledgement (let alone royalties) and pissing 
> and laughing on your grave, you are screwed too.

Unless that's what you want. Unless you're more interested in giving the 
world good software than getting strokes from your peeps.

> The GPL protects the code from gettting trapped into a closed product 
> and also the rights of the original developers to it.

The MIT license doesn't prevent you from having an open project no matter 
what someone else may do to it. Did FreeBSD disappear when MS used the TCP 
stack from it?

> It's more restrictive because it must make sure code remains free to use 
> and modify.

So does the MIT license. The difference is the GPL makes sure someone 
*else's* code remains free to use and modify.

If I put my own original code under the GPL, it's free to use and modify.
If I put my own original code under the MIT, it's free to use and modify.

If I put my own original code under the GPL, you can modify that, but you 
can't hide *your* modifications.

If I put my own original code under the MIT, you can modify that, but you 
can hide *your* modifications.

So the GPL does nothing to ensure that open code remains open. All it does 
is ensure that if I feel like giving away my code, you can't make a profit 
on your own work if it's related to mine.  It also ensures that someone who 
needs to make a profit on their software to ensure they can provide the 
necessary improvements will be unable to do so.

And the new stuff about forcing even plug-in authors to GPL-license their 
code when it isn't a modification of the GPL'ed code is clearly not even 
trying to keep you from "taking advantage" of my free 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:
> Darren New escreveu:
>> Except we're talking about plug-ins here, which by their very 
>> definition are an independent part of the program.
> 
> Yes, see my answer to Nicolas above.

If they need source code from the compiler, then they've copied bits of the 
compiler, and they can be GPLed without technological barriers to keeping 
them from running based on their license.

Device drivers link into the kernel in Windows, but they're not part of 
Windows, either. As soon as you make a well-defined API for plug-ins, you've 
specifically separated plug-ins from main line code. Programs that run on 
Linux make use of Linux data structures too (see ioctl() for example). That 
doesn't mean everything that calls ioctl is GPLed.

While firefox plug-ins might use less of firefox's internals than one might 
think, firefox extensions are intimately related to firefox internals 
through a well-defined API. I'm not sure why you would think a plug-in 
naturally falls under the GPL for GCC and extensions for Firefox don't.

If I can create a plug-in without copying any code supplied by GCC, then the 
plug-in doesn't fall under the GPL. If the only technological way to create 
a plug-in is to use code that is supplied with GCC, then the plug-in doesn't 
fall under the GPL. (For example, in the USA, if the only way to reset a 
floppy disk controller is to poke a certain sequence of bytes to its I/O 
port, you can't copyright that sequence of bytes.)  If the GPL is viral to 
plug-ins, there's no need to add barriers to making non-GPLed plug-ins, is 
there?  At least, no more than making technological barriers to modifying 
GCC itself.

And where's my freedom to distribute a version of GCC that doesn't check for 
a license string in the plug-in?

-- 
   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:
> No. You're using the much better product.
 > All you're saying is that the GPL prevents anyone from dedicating
 > enough resources to make it worth paying money for? ;-)

That's a way of seeing it, yes.  Handing your problems over to a single 
entity in exchange of money and freedom.

 > Why would all copies of an MIT-licensed
> source be more likely to disappear than all copies of a GPL-licensed 
> source?

Good question!  Let me consult the horoscope...

>> And if you were one of the contributors of code and patches to that 
>> software and later realizes Microsoft or Adobe using it in their 
>> closed products without any acknowledgement (let alone royalties) and 
>> pissing and laughing on your grave, you are screwed too.
> 
> Unless that's what you want. Unless you're more interested in giving the 
> world good software than getting strokes from your peeps.

No one is that altruist, but I'm sure you didn't really mean it.  GPLed 
software provides a good framework for *continued* sharing and bettering 
of code and that is the main reason why people use it.  Sharing is 
important because workload and bug fixing is divided by many interested 
parties.  The GPL also ensures that no one will suddenly stop 
contributing code for fear that the code is too damn good and could stop 
in a commercial leecher product without further notice.

>> The GPL protects the code from gettting trapped into a closed product 
>> and also the rights of the original developers to it.
> 
> The MIT license doesn't prevent you from having an open project no 
> matter what someone else may do to it. Did FreeBSD disappear when MS 
> used the TCP stack from it?

Would open-source unGPLed Linux die if Microsoft and their 99% market 
share would canibalize it as a basis for a better product?  You betcha!

>> It's more restrictive because it must make sure code remains free to 
>> use and modify.
> 
> So does the MIT license. The difference is the GPL makes sure someone 
> *else's* code remains free to use and modify.

Someone *else's* code wouldn't exist in the first place without the 
original GPLed code.  That's what a modification means.

> So the GPL does nothing to ensure that open code remains open. All it 
> does is ensure that if I feel like giving away my code, you can't make a 
> profit on your own work if it's related to mine.

The GPL isn't about profits or money, it's about freedom.  AFAIK, 
companies make money off of GPLed code and all they need to do is 
provide the source for any modifications.

> And the new stuff about forcing even plug-in authors to GPL-license 
> their code when it isn't a modification of the GPL'ed code is clearly 
> not even trying to keep you from "taking advantage" of my free code.

gcc plugins are not flash players.  gcc is doing the heavy work and they 
are using it to provide extra useful functionality.  A gcc plugin would 
not be a standalone app.

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4980a265$1@news.povray.org...
> 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?

Rights of the author who released his code under GPL of course. Only in the
bizzaro world might it make sense to assume GPL would offer protection to
authors who don't (!?) use it.

Post a reply to this message

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.

I use pan as my newsreader.  It's licensed under the GPL.

If I modify it for my own use, that's fine.  If I modify it and then 
distribute my modifications, I *must* distribute my changes to the code 
as well (I believe along with the original code - ie, the complete, 
compilable modification chain).

This protects Charles' (the author of pan) rights because he did the core 
development on the code that I've modified.  He has the right to decide 
how his code is used and under what conditions modified versions of that 
code are distributed.  He chose the GPL.

If I want to reuse his code, I have to respect his wishes (and his rights 
as the original author) about how it be distributed.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New escreveu:
>> Your freedom to not be punched in the nose restricts my freedom to 
>> punch you in the nose.
> 
> I feel that freedom is in risk right now. ;)

Not at all.

>> Then what freedom does it add to the author to force his plug-in to be 
>> open source and licensed under the GPL?
> 
> The freedom to use the gcc infrastructure for the benefit of his plugin.

No. He could use the gcc infrastructure for his plug-in regardless of how he 
licenses his plug-in.  He could also use the gcc infrastructure for the 
benefit of his plug-in were gcc licensed with MIT licensing.

In other words, you're taking the conclusion ("the plug-in is licensed with 
GPL") and assuming it's a prerequisite. That's called "begging the question."

My question is, what benefit does it bestow upon the plug-in author to 
*require* a GPL license of the plug-in? If I want to release my plug-in in 
object only, how does it benefit *me* (or *you*) to say "your only choice is 
GPL or not write it at all."  Why is it a benefit to people who would want 
to use my plug-in for me to not write it because it would cost me too much?

>> How does that benefit anyone who wants to use the plug-in without 
>> modification?
> 
> The GPL allows for unrestricted *use*, for any means.

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.

-- 
   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:
> That's a way of seeing it, yes.  Handing your problems over to a single 
> entity in exchange of money and freedom.

But if there's a free version, and a for-fee version, and people willingly 
pay for the for-fee version, it must be of sufficient benefit, yes?

>> Why would all copies of an MIT-licensed
>> source be more likely to disappear than all copies of a GPL-licensed 
>> source?
> 
> Good question!  Let me consult the horoscope...

OK. So you have no real answer as to how your disaster scenario might 
actually occur.

>> Unless that's what you want. Unless you're more interested in giving 
>> the world good software than getting strokes from your peeps.
> 
> No one is that altruist, 

Oh. Sorry. No, nobody ever gives money away anonymously either, I guess.

> GPLed 
> software provides a good framework for *continued* sharing and bettering 
> of code and that is the main reason why people use it. 

That's debatable. OK, it provides a good framework unquestionably. Whether 
it provides a better framework for helping more people get value out of work 
is another question.

> The GPL also ensures that no one will suddenly stop 
> contributing code for fear that the code is too damn good and could stop 
> in a commercial leecher product without further notice.

Some people don't really worry that someone else is using their code.

> Would open-source unGPLed Linux die if Microsoft and their 99% market 
> share would canibalize it as a basis for a better product?  You betcha!

I'm not sure why you think that.

>>> It's more restrictive because it must make sure code remains free to 
>>> use and modify.
>>
>> So does the MIT license. The difference is the GPL makes sure someone 
>> *else's* code remains free to use and modify.
> 
> Someone *else's* code wouldn't exist in the first place without the 
> original GPLed code.  That's what a modification means.

Yes? So?  I think you've missed the point I'm trying to make.

>> So the GPL does nothing to ensure that open code remains open. All it 
>> does is ensure that if I feel like giving away my code, you can't make 
>> a profit on your own work if it's related to mine.
> 
> The GPL isn't about profits or money, it's about freedom.  AFAIK, 
> companies make money off of GPLed code and all they need to do is 
> provide the source for any modifications.

No, because they can't charge money for the modifications they make.

The only way you can charge money for it is by making a large mess that's so 
hard to debug that other people will come to you and pay you to fix bugs.

>> And the new stuff about forcing even plug-in authors to GPL-license 
>> their code when it isn't a modification of the GPL'ed code is clearly 
>> not even trying to keep you from "taking advantage" of my free code.
> 
> gcc plugins are not flash players.  gcc is doing the heavy work and they 
> are using it to provide extra useful functionality.  A gcc plugin would 
> not be a standalone app.

Neither is a firefox extension. Neither is a Windows device driver. Yet 
surprisingly there are oodles of both, many of which aren't GPLed. How many 
FSF people complained that Windows device drivers need to be signed?

-- 
   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:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:4980a265$1@news.povray.org...
>> 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?
> 
> Rights of the author who released his code under GPL of course. Only in the
> bizzaro world might it make sense to assume GPL would offer protection to
> authors who don't (!?) use it.

So you're agreeing. The GPL protects the freedoms of the author using the 
GPL at the expense of the freedoms of the author using the MIT license. And 
the MIT license restricts users less in what they can do with 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

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.

-- 
   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 <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> And if you were one of the contributors of code and patches to that 
> software and later realizes Microsoft or Adobe using it in their closed 
> products without any acknowledgement (let alone royalties) and pissing 
> and laughing on your grave, you are screwed too.

  If you release something under the MIT license, you are saying that
people can use the code in *any way* they want, including using it in
closed-source software. That's what makes the MIT license truely free.
If someone then goes and uses the code in a closed-source software, then
what is it there to be pissed off about? You granted permission to do
exactly that.

> The GPL protects the code from gettting trapped into a closed product 
> and also the rights of the original developers to it.

  By not being as free as it advertises to be.

> It's more restrictive because it must make sure code remains free to use 
> and modify.  I take it over any permissive license anyday.

  It's in fact so restrictive that it becomes useless in many cases.

  The GPL license is basically completely incompatible with everything
else. If you are in a project using any other license, you have to make
extra sure you don't use *any* GPL'd code anywhere. This can be a real
burden sometimes.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> 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.

  There are other licenses which protect the rights of the original author
equally well but are not so restrictive about which other licenses they
may be combined with.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Hmm... didn't I mention not too long ago that the FSF is going a bit overboard?
(And I hadn't even heard of this one then.)

Good to know I'm not the only retard who thinks this way...

Anyway, introducing technical barriers in GPL'ed code is a bit nonsensical:
Everyone can create a version of it with these checks "amputated". Everyone
actually explicitly has a to do so.

What's next? Trying to put this technical barrier under cover of laws
prohibiting or restricting circumvention?


What I see convinces me even more that the FSF's goal is to *force* all software
authors to give away their software for free, because for some weird reason they
think there is a higher moral right to free software.

I must correct myself: This is not so much a "political" thing, as I had claimed
earlier, but a "religious" one.

All your codebase are belong to us.

Post a reply to this message

clipka escreveu:
> All your codebase are belong to us.

Only codebases based on GPLed software.  You have the ultimate freedom 
of not using it as well.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp escreveu:
> >   This makes GPL incompatible with all other licenses. This is rather
> > restricting.

> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

> Apache and Boost are among them.

  Their definition of "compatible" is that you can re-license the other
code to be under the GPL. In other words, you can use non-GPL code in a
GPL program, and publish the entire program under the GPL, effectively
changing the license of the original non-GPL code to GPL.

  What you can't do is take GPL code and use it in a project which uses
a non-GPL license.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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"

>   It's in fact so restrictive that it becomes useless in many cases.

If it's so restrictive and so useless, why are you even getting into an 
argument about it rather than getting over the stupid damned thing? 
Surely there's value there that fuels the many flames like this.

Fact is people want to use it in their closed projects and not give away 
anything, that's why they complain so much about GPL software rather 
than pull themselves together and use MIT/BSD software.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> 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.

Oh, come on!  If you stopped whinning about sucky and evil GPL software 
and pulled yourself together to write down replacement code for said 
libs, you'd have by now a pretty large collection of good non-GPL 
software under your belt.  After all, they are pretty trivial and simple 
against your magnum opus.

> Hence, GPL code leads to bugs in non-GPL 
> code.

You're complaining that it's Microsoft's fault that device drivers are 
buggy and crash Windows.

Post a reply to this message

Warp escreveu:
>   There are other licenses which protect the rights of the original author
> equally well but are not so restrictive about which other licenses they
> may be combined with.

And what are you waiting to use them?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.

  Btw, libjpeg is not GPL.

  (And another btw: I have no idea what you are talking about above.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >   It's in fact so restrictive that it becomes useless in many cases.

> If it's so restrictive and so useless, why are you even getting into an 
> argument about it rather than getting over the stupid damned thing? 

  Uh? I don't understand.

  If I think that it's restrictive and useless, I should not express that
opinion? I really can't see the logical causality here.

> Surely there's value there that fuels the many flames like this.

  I fail to see any causality here either. The only reason why I argue
so vocally against the GPL must be that the GPL is valuable? How does
that make any sense?

  Could the reason why I argue against the GPL is that fanboys advocating
it as something it's not ("you can use it in *any way* you want") are
irritating? No, that cannot be the reason. The reason must be that I think
GPL is valuable, which is why I oppose it so much. Yeah, that makes so much
sense.

> Fact is people want to use it in their closed projects and not give away 
> anything, that's why they complain so much about GPL software rather 
> than pull themselves together and use MIT/BSD software.

  Yes. Everybody is trying to rip off GPL code for their selfish desires,
which is why the only reason why people oppose the GPL.

  This, of course, includes people who would want to use some other
open source licenses which are even less restrictive than the GPL.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp escreveu:
> >   There are other licenses which protect the rights of the original author
> > equally well but are not so restrictive about which other licenses they
> > may be combined with.

> And what are you waiting to use them?

  Uh? Exactly what are you arguing here? I don't really get it.

  It almost sounds like you were saying that I *am* using the GPL even
though I oppose it so much. Or something. I don't really understand what
is it that you are saying.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.

Ooooh - you're one of the bad guys who try to steal free software, like libjpg!
Don't you know that this piece of free software is only free as in "freedom of
speach", and not as in "free for the taking"? Noooo, you gotta pay a price for
that free library you intend to use!

How much?

Ooooh, nothing of particular value... just give us all rights to your complete
application, including all other libraries it might be using - including the
right to use it to acquire other software the same way as well - that'll be
enough to settle the bill...

You know, after all, we're fighting for a good cause, against those evil
companies that want to steal your software from you...

..... and of course, don't trust the MIT followers, because, you know, they're
not
your friends, they can't protect you and all... *we're* your friends,
remember...


Heck, I wish someone would come up with a free software license expressively
*forbidding* derivative works' license conditions to require any published
derivatives of the derivative to be released completely as open source.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Oh, come on!  If you stopped whinning about sucky and evil GPL software
> and pulled yourself together to write down replacement code for said
> libs, you'd have by now a pretty large collection of good non-GPL
> software under your belt.  After all, they are pretty trivial and simple
> against your magnum opus.

Isn't that just the same point the FSF is claiming about commercial software,
just with a different "sign bit"?

The bad companies will assimilate your free software project until, with their
market power, they have "dried out" your project, so it only lives on as part
of their closed, commercial code - and other similar free projects likewise, so
the only alternatives left out there will be commercial products.

What's the difference here to a bad FSF that will assimilate *my* free software
project until, with *their* social power, they have "dried out" *my* project,
so it only lives on under *their* GPL'ed, not-for-commercial license - and
other similar free projects likewise, so the only alternatives left out there
will be GPL'ed products...?

Except that "FSF is ungood" would be a contradiction in itself, of couse...


I see people kind of measuring the one by the inches and the other by the
centimeters here, while basically it's the same: Influential organizations
trying to force their will on as much software as possible.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> The bad companies will assimilate your free software project until, with their
> market power, they have "dried out" your project,

Name two.

-- 
   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:4980c287$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> > news:4980a265$1@news.povray.org...
> >> 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?

> > Rights of the author who released his code under GPL of course. Only in
the
> > bizzaro world might it make sense to assume GPL would offer protection
to
> > authors who don't (!?) use it.

> So you're agreeing. The GPL protects the freedoms of the author using the
> GPL

So far, I do agree.

> at the expense of the freedoms of the author using the MIT license.

This part is absolute nonsense. It's the MIT license that protects the right
of the author that is using the MIT license. Just like it's GPL license
that's protecting the rights of the author using the GPL license.

GPL neither protects, nor restricts the rights of anyone using any other
license. It's absurd to claim something like that, so I don't understand "at
the expense" part.

> And  the MIT license restricts users less in what they can do with the
code.

Maybe so, but that's irrelevant. The author can pick any license that he
wants. If the author wishes least restrictions upon the users, he won't pick
MIT either but release his code to public domain.

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4980c417$1@news.povray.org...

> If I include libjpg without modifying it at all, I can no longer use the
MIT
> license on my code,

So what? It's not your god given right to be able to use MIT license.

It's your option, however, to not use libjpg, if you don't agree to the
license.

> even if my code is orders of magnitude larger and more
> valuable.

That's neither here nor there. People don't have a right to code that's less
valuable than theirs.

> 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.

That's some convoluted thinking. Libjpg is an option. You can take it or
leave it. Its existance doesn't force anything on you.

Post a reply to this message