nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > but at the same
> > time you must (3) keep the automotive company's confidential information (CAN
> > bus protocol details and such) secret
>
> Binary data?  Besides, how much of it is to be deep-linked with GPL
> software for it to be required to be released in source form?

But that's exactly the problem: With LGPL it wouldn't be that much of a hassle.
But GPL says: If your product has *any* GPLed code in it, *all* the product
software must be GPLed - every single byte of it. If you sell the thing, that
is.

Binary data? No way. Doesn't count as source code.

> >, *and* make sure that nobody can convert
> > the car into rolling danger by "hacking" the box.
>
> Anyone can convert the car into rolling danger purposefully, if they so
> want to and have a minimum knowledge of mechanics.  How many users of
> Android-powered cellphones will want to do it, though?

Yeah, if bad people want to do bad things, they do it... but then you as the
developer of that thing may be sued for not restricting access to it well
enough...


> > While clearing away the "legal landmines" of software patents, the FSF is laying
> > their own "legal mines" in the territory gained, with the aggressive GPL'ization
> > of free software.
>
> So the trouble is that one would like to freely use X software as basis
> for their own without having to comply with the terms of X's license?  I
> call that pirating.  Pirating is genuinely more annoying to me as
> software developer than any over-the-top FSF campaign.

Nay, we're not talking about software pirating - we're talking about the FSF
promoting a license scheme that some developers would possibly not opt for if
the FSF didn't tell them that it is the thing that will save the planet.

Take for example a ray tracing software. Say, I write my own raytracing software
from scratch - except for the PNG library, which I don't bother to code all by
myself. As far as my own code goes, I'd be happily willing to place it in the
public domain. I cannot, however, because I need to GPL it for the sake of the
PNG lib.

Now someone else needs a raytracer that outputs HDR. He doesn't really care
about PNG, but he takes that raytracing software I wrote (including the PNG lib
I didn't write), and replaces the PNG code with HDR code written by himself from
scratch. Let's for argument's sake assume that he, too, is perfectly fine with
his work to be placed in the PD.

So the product contains work from me, perfectly willing to place it in the
public domain, and work from that other guy, who added the HDR code, and also
perfectly willing to PD it. Nothing left of the PNG code which forced me to GPL
the software.

Nothing left? Hm... I had to release my code under the GPL. So if that other guy
wants to distribute his software, he has to GPL it, too.

THAT is what I consider nonsense and non-freedom: We have a piece of software
comprised solely of code contributed by people willing to place it in the PD -
but an author of some piece of code that isn't even in there gets his will
under which license the software is distributed. Everyone could do anything
with our work as they please - if it wasn't for the virulent nature of the GPL.


Granted, this might not be the typical case. But it does illustrate the
underlying problem: Even if some software is released under the GPL, this may
not be in line with code authors' intentions. It may actually be that *all*
people that have contributed to the final version would be perfectly fine with
a totally different license scheme - and yet the FSF has their say in it.


> > The problem with it is that the FSF doesn't see it this way; their GPL is geared
> > towards making *ALL* user applications free. Including, by the way, web
> > applications custom-tailored for an individual website.
>
> Well, if they succeed like they succeeded with their HURD kernel, I'll
> be afraid.  I think it's just a moral stance though:  they know it's
> unrealistic but keep hitting on the ideal anyway.

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

From what I see, it's not a moral stance, but a religious one, and that makes me
very uneasy about the FSF and GPL.

Post a reply to this message