From rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca Tue May 09 10:41:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24030 invoked from network); 9 May 2000 17:40:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 May 2000 17:40:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca) (129.97.134.11) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 May 2000 17:40:11 -0000 Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15568 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 13:39:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200005091739.NAA15568@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: OT - programming logflash Re: [lojban] Logflash In-Reply-To: Message from "Robert J. Chassell" of "Tue, 09 May 2000 06:49:29 EDT." Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 13:39:41 -0400 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell >>> 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. 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.