"Chris B" <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
> >
> > Take for example a ray tracing software. Say, I write my own raytracing
> > software
> > from scratch - except for the PNG library, which I don't bother to code
> > all by
> > myself. As far as my own code goes, I'd be happily willing to place it in
> > the
> > public domain. I cannot, however, because I need to GPL it for the sake of
> > the
> > PNG lib.
> >
> > Now someone else needs a raytracer that outputs HDR. He doesn't really
> > care
> > about PNG, but he takes that raytracing software I wrote (including the
> > PNG lib
> > I didn't write), and replaces the PNG code with HDR code written by
> > himself from
> > scratch. Let's for argument's sake assume that he, too, is perfectly fine
> > with
> > his work to be placed in the PD.
> >
> > So the product contains work from me, perfectly willing to place it in the
> > public domain, and work from that other guy, who added the HDR code, and
> > also
> > perfectly willing to PD it. Nothing left of the PNG code which forced me
> > to GPL
> > the software.
> >
> > Nothing left? Hm... I had to release my code under the GPL. So if that
> > other guy
> > wants to distribute his software, he has to GPL it, too.
> >
> > THAT is what I consider nonsense and non-freedom: We have a piece of
> > software
> > comprised solely of code contributed by people willing to place it in the
> > PD -
> > but an author of some piece of code that isn't even in there gets his will
> > under which license the software is distributed. Everyone could do
> > anything
> > with our work as they please - if it wasn't for the virulent nature of the
> > GPL.
> >
> >
> > Granted, this might not be the typical case. But it does illustrate the
> > underlying problem: Even if some software is released under the GPL, this
> > may
> > not be in line with code authors' intentions. It may actually be that
> > *all*
> > people that have contributed to the final version would be perfectly fine
> > with
> > a totally different license scheme - and yet the FSF has their say in it.
> >
>
> I think you're seriously mixing up Copyright and Licensing in this example.
>
> IANAL, but my understanding is that you retain copyright to your own work
> when you release it under GPL V3, even when it is combined with other
> elements licensed under GPL V3. You are perfectly entitled to also release
> your own work (or work to which you hold sole copyright) as part of other
> distributions under a different free or commercial license of your choosing.
> You can also contact the copyright holder of other GPL works and seek a
> separate license from them for the redistribution of their work under other
> free or commercial licenses.
>
> For the most part GPL doesn't remove your rights, as copyright holder, to do
> what you want with your work, rather it protects them. The main exception
> being that you obviously can't issue someone else with an 'exclusive'
> license to something you've already licensed in perpetuity under GPL.
>
> > From what I see, it's not a moral stance, but a religious one, and that
> > makes me
> > very uneasy about the FSF and GPL.
>
> I see it more as an inevitable response to some vicious and sustained
> attacks by a small number of huge, disreputable commercial interests with
> very large and well funded legal teams against altruistic individuals and
> groups without the necessary financial backing to fight back. Over the years
> I've seen huge bodies of work, contributed freely for the benefit of
> everyone, wiped away or enveloped by commercial or legal trickery. It's sad
> that, having found that the open source community has evolved mechanisms to
> combat their legal departments, there now seems to be an intensifying focus
> on campaigns to confuse, discredit and divide the open source community.
>
> Nevertheless. My experience is that legitimate commercial development has
> continued to evolve alongside open source development, with each benefiting
> greatly from the other. I've worked in various large organisations over the
> years that have both benefitted from and contributed to open source software
> and I don't really see that changing anytime soon. Nor, unfortunately, do I
> see the big legal battles stopping anytime soon.
>
> Regards,
> Chris B.

I wouldn't put it any better. :)

Post a reply to this message