Re: OT - programming logflash Re: [lojban] Logflash

[Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>]

>>> The GPL is viral in a very virulent and obnoxious way.
>
>Not true: it is a vacination.
>
>The GPL prevents someone else from taking your code, making a bug fix
>or enhancement and then preventing *you* from using that bug fix or
>enhancement. That's right, without the GPL, you can be forbidden from
>using a bug fix or enhancement to your own code.
>
>Of course, if you like to be prevented from using fixes or
>improvements to your own work, then go ahead, let yourself 
>get ripped off.
>
>The people who find the GPL `virulent and obnoxious' are those who
>find it forbids them from stealing. Thieves hate good locks.

You just accused me of attempting, or at least conspiracy to attempt,
theft. I don't think there's call for that.

>From the NetBSD licensing explanation page:

The people working on the NetBSD Project want to provide a high-quality
system that anyone can use for whatever they want. We're not in it for
the money (we're volunteers!), so we've no desire to keep people from
distributing our work. However, for various reasons, we'd like credit
for the work that we do, and so neither do we want to place our work
into the public domain, and thereby give up our claim to even having our
names on the software we wrote! Berkeley-style licenses are a happy
medium: they allow people to copy and modify the software, so long as we
get name recognition and our names aren't used without our permissions.

One thing that some people don't realize about Berkeley-style licenses
is that they allow licensees (the users of the licensed work) to sell
the code, in any form, with or without modification, and that they make
no requirement that licensees give away the source code, even if
they're selling binaries. This provides a striking contrast to the
license terms granted by the GNU General Public License, because the GPL
requires that, if you're distributing binaries, you be willing to give
away the sources to build those binaries.

Those of us working on the NetBSD Project are aware of this distinction,
and some even value it. As stated above, we want anyone to be able to
use the NetBSD operating system for whatever they want, just as long as
they follow the few restrictions made by our license terms.
Additionally, we don't think it's right to require people who add to our
work and want to distribute the results (for profit or otherwise) to
give away the source to their additions; they made the additions, and
they should be free to do with them as they wish.

In summary, the people involved in the NetBSD Project use a
Berkeley-style license where possible because it closely matches our
goal of allowing users to do whatever they'd like with our software,
while making sure that we get credit for the work we have done. We are
pragmatic, however, and will include software with different license
terms in the NetBSD operating system if it significantly improves the
quality of the system.

<end quote>

There are other issues as well. I'm a cryptogeek. I'd like to see good
crypto used everywhere. I'd like to see limited duplication of effort.
I love free software, and I like to see it used as broadly as possible,
especially in crypto, because it's almost always better. Because of
this, I've tried to get free stuff used in (commercial) projects I've
been a part of. The GPL requires you to distribute source code, under
the GPL, if you use GPL source in your work. If you think for an
instant that a company that makes its living from its code is going to
accept that, you're out of your mind. So they end up buying an
inferior, and very expensive, product, just for the priviledge of not
being forced by so-called 'free' software to do something they don't
want to do.

The GPL is like forcing someone to be free by pointing a gun at them and
telling them to be free. It doesn't work like that, sorry. If you
truly believe in freedom, have the guts to make your software as free as
you say your beliefs are.

End of rant.

BTW, the word 'free' above does not refer to money at any point.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest.
As a member of the Hans Solo School of Action Before Thought, Welcome,
You've Got Male.