Slashdot Mirror
Why I Love The GPL
Roblimo writes "'There are a lot of good reasons to like the GPL: the GNU Public License. For one thing, it's a David and Goliath kind of thing. It's the little guy standing up to the corporate behemoths that run rough-shod over our daily lives by virtue of their influence, legal and otherwise, on government. For another, it's virtuous.' These are the opening words to a NewsForge article praising the GPL by Joe Barr. Now and then we forget how much of the software we use and love is made possible by the General Public License. Thanks for reminding us, Joe. (NewsForge and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.)"
Definitely an improvement over the old days where you had to buy every little utility.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
http://www.vasoftware.com/gateway/offshoreontrack. php
It's the GNU General Public License, not GNU Public License.
"Thanks for reminding us, Joe. (NewsForge and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.)""
Nope. No corporate behemoths here.
Exhibit B: Once again, it was piracy of public software. Stolen in order to increase Bill Gates' personal fortune. But it was legal theft. The MIT license covering Kerberos provided no protection against that sort of thing.
In both cases, the guy manages to be a communist idiot and fail to notice that a) MS is not "selling" the protocol in question "back to the public" but selling a program that uses this protocol, b) you cannot "sell back" anything you haven't actually taken (it's a common communist misconception that if something is public property then everyone can have a share of it), and c) if MS had not embraced these protocols, he'd be screaming that MS has broken it by making their own version of it. And so on.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
from the when-you-have-nothing-new-to-say-but-like-to-hear- yourself-talk-anyway dept.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The GPL is great for the obvious reasons, but there is also the culture change that came with it. IMHO, the area the GPL influence most was the culture, enabling free software to truly be free.
This sig sucks.
Unfortunately, we might need an final ruling in SCO vs. Reality a little more than we like to admit.
I like it because when Bruce Perens created the GPL back in the late 70s for Sun, he was considering the average home user who may have needed to compile his latest application.
Back then applications were published in computer magazines such as Omni, Compute and of course Scientic American. These were usually in hundreds lines of code in length and principally written in Assembler.
There's not a week that goes by when I think of Mr Perens and his contributions with the GPL and the neural networks which lead to the discovery of the Internet.
Which is nice.
Most of the software I use is under a BSD/MIT/ISC style license, that is more free than the GPL. I think the only GPL thing I would miss is gcc. And contrary to the FUD in this article, none of the BSD style licensed software I use has been magically closed sourced on me. Just because someone can make a closed source "DNS server that's exactly like bind but not" by using the BIND code, doesn't mean everyone loses bind, its still there for everyone to use just like always.
But software in the public domain, and software covered by a BSD-style license, is not afforded any protection whatsoever to ensure those same freedoms exist for the next user, or the next, or the one after her.
Joe's article perpetuates the falsehood that non-GPLed software can, somehow, be taken away from the public and locked away.
Bullshit.
He even goes so far as to cite the cases of the BSD networking stack (used by M$ in current versions of Windows) and Kerberos, despite the fact that absolutely nobody has been harmed and despite the fact that both software suites are still freely available.
If M$ could lock Kerberos away from the rest of us, don't you think they would have? Instead, they're just sticking their own users with gratuoitous incompatibilities, while the rest of us can use the real thing.
This is even more true in the case of the Windows IP stack. All M$ did by "stealing" the BSD networking stack is keep the rest of us from having to work around their bugs. This is a win for everyone.
Any Open Source Definition-compliant license guarantees that the covered code will, always and forever, be freely available for all to use, modify, and redistribute. The GPL is not required to achieve this goal.
The only goal the GPL works toward beyond those of other OSD-compliant licenses is the perpetuation of the FSF utopia, which calls for nothing less than the destruction of the software industry as we know it. It claims to work toward freedom, while it actually works to deny freedom to those who do not share its goals.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
The GPL is pretty nice ... but only for people who understand it ...
There are a lot of people who put their work under GPL but don't want others to use the Software for own projects.
Recently I wanted to use some GPL'ed work offered by someone for my very own projects and he accused me to be a pirate and thief and that he will be sueing me for having used parts of his code for my own work which he put under GPL. This has result into a little flamewar on ANN which you can read here. So using GPL'ed software written by others can indeed be dangerous because when it's offered in a way to the public by someone but not meant to be used like described in the GPL - e.g. misunderstanding.
Another thing with GPL is that it's basicly a thing where others rip off work written by others without returning anything. The operating system MorphOS for example is one of these things. Their developers are using a lot of parts from the open source world such as ixemul or libnix as well as ports of gcc, binutils and other things without offering the sources. When contacting them and asking them to hand out the code they usually reply that the code has been lost or they redirect you to older ports of the software with codesnipplets that doesn't work anymore. Most pirating of GPL'ed work done by others are done within the Amiga community as well as many other communities.
I don't say that GPL is a bad thing but I say that it's a matter of being ripped off and abused for what one has done if someone else takes everything and not caring for the work I've done and not returning anything, not even patches or code when asked.
It's simple: If you don't like the license, then don't use code from the program in your software. Most developers (on slashdot) who hate the GPL do so because the source code is available and technically they can do everything with it and yet the license restricts them. It's like bringing a cake near your mouth but not letting you have it. But instead if the GPL had made the software closed source, they wouldn't have complained. Developers are pissed because they can't use code developed by someone else in their own software and yet not give the freedoms to others which were given to them by the original developers. They're pissed because they can't have a free ride. If you say that you're using only one line of code from a GPL'ed software, then don't use it at all, code on your own. But if that one line is important enough to be used, then the author has the right to restrict its usage.
GPL (and similar licenses) is the only license, which, when it says it protects the right, it actually protects the rights of the user. Really. BSD style licenses don't protect the user/people's right completely.
the preamble from the GPL reads almost like a friendlier marx
(i paraphrase) "the proletariat (those without property who produce, ie open-source programmers) must choose to abolish property (restrictive legal rights on source)!"
i just hope we don't get a lenin on our hands... maybe sun?
bought the tshirt?
http://www.splitreason.com/productdetail.php?id=42
i've worn it out =p
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you don't allow anyone outside of your organization to use the updated product, you do not need to release the source. It's just that you cannot distribute anything without including the source. More useless FUD.
We would do well to remember that Microsoft used to be the 'little guy' standing up to the corporate behemoth of IBM and the like.
I don't see anything that hasn't been said before. Is this anything more than a call for BSD vs. GPL (or corp. vs. free software) flamewar?
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Funny metion to "coporate giants", but then plug in OSTG in the same title. I personaly love OSTG and all that they offer, but I find it strange that we so quickly and viciously lable something offtopic, while the fact that OSTG owns other companies is frequently plugged in - regardless of how irrevelant it is to the subject at hand sometimes.
When I developed our free mud client, I had wanted to retain full ownership of the software, but allow the source code to be downloaded. I have used Linux for 7 years and was familiar with GPL software, but never looked much into it. After discussing it with other developer, GPL is the license I ended up going with. It gives the end user the ability to modify the source code to their liking and requires them to make public any upgrades.
The only dislike I had with the GPL was that anyone using my software could do so for a fee. In the end though, I figured if they develop it and create features that charge fee's, I would get a copy of the source and create the same features and not charge a fee =)
My Thoughts, Kyndig
do people who work at non-profit have some claim to superior morality over those who do not because the company they work at are not pursuing profit? i don't think so.
... Richard Stallman is hot?
This'll probably get me flamed, but oh well.
The problem with the GPL mindset is that it looks at the world as if there are two different groups: big companies and "the people". The problem is that this model ignores, and in fact, discourages the small businesses that are already getting crushed by big business. Here's an example: Let's say I'm making a game, and I want to use some standard but rather complicated file format for my models. Now let's assume that there's a premade library that will allow me to easily support the format. Oh joy! Except it uses GPL. Now, I don't want to have to release my code, there's enough theft of ideas in indie gaming as it is. So, I can't really use the library. Neither can a big studio like EA games. Now, who gets hurt more? It's not a problem for EA; they just have one of their coders stay late(er) and the job is done. Or they can pay a third party. But a small developer is probably stretched as it is, and now has to spend even more time reinventing the wheel.
For my money, I like the LGPL. Freedom meets being able to do what you want to do. It doesn't mean being able to do whatever somebody else thinks you should be doing. Maybe someone will abuse the privilege. That's part of what it means to give someone freedom: Allowing them to do things you don't approve of.
[I am re-posting this] Even putting your work in the public domain puts it within the legal but immoral intellectual property system. However, the BSDL grants the rights I wish people could automatically have. The GPL places unnecessaries and restrictions on users/programmers and perpetuates the intellectual property system. I personally don't think the law should have any say in IP, but if I must license my code, I want to point out what rights I wish people had. I personally think business should be allowed to use whatever license they want...they can even use some of my code in their proprietary licensed product. If the license is too restrictive, people should be smart enough not to buy that product or to just break the terms of the EULA...but it should be up to the consumer. The only thing anyone should not be allowed* to do, is cause real harm**. People can express anything they want, even if their expression entails reiterating an idea, c function, poem, etc that they did not author. Copyright, patents, and licenses are all restrictions on free speech. People also have the right to do whatever they want to their own property or body or the property or body of someone else with consent. Ideas, code, etc, are not property because they can be copied infinitely at no cost. When you "steal" a song from the RIAA, the RIAA still has the original! Free market economics (and even most command econ) is based on the idea that there are unlimited demands and wants, but only a finite supply of products. This is only true in an IP economy in that there's an insatiable demand for NEW ideas; the old ones can be copied until everyone has as many as they want. The profit motive that drives the demanded innovation is also totally scewed because people are simply more creative if they aren't directed by a private tyranny (corporation). Good art does not come from a marketing department, a better source might be an eccentric who produces what they find beautiful, not what sells. Good music doesn't come from the RIAA, it comes from some innovator on an indy label who is willing to risk not sounding exactly like every top 40 hit. All intellectual innovation is plagerism and "theft" because there is nothing new in the world. Everyone learns from those around them and imporves or expands on older concepts. Although many exellent programmers (OSS and proprietary) are now well paid by big business, what most /.ers don't realize is that OSS has already won out in terms of influence! You don't have to look at Linux to see the results free software. The internet and TCP/IP is a free open standard implemented by a combination of capitalism (western ISPS, hardware/software developers), socialism (the university system, libraries, other public access, public funded R&D, much of it from the DoD), and anarchy (the actual content on the net itself). MS windows has BSD code in it. Apple's Darwin IS BSD. SUN/Solaris will soon be opening its code (its been illegally available for a while now). There are easily accessible underground source distributions of Cisco IOS too. Moreover, the programmers at places like Microsoft are standing on the shoulders of giants. Even if they weren't able to directly access old code bases, their conceptual training in computer science and software engineering came from a university system where the free exchange of ideas is quite highly valued.
People no longer respect IP law. Downloading/Uploading an MP3 that someone else copyrighted may be illegal, but we all do it. Soon IP law will be a unenforceable anachronism. Its a stupid conservative restriction on civil liberates like the old sodomy laws that were struck down by the USA court system just recently. Hopefully drug laws will go the same way, then laws requiring taxes (when most of that money goes to killing people). The ultimate libertarian dream would be people slowly realizing that government only has power in their minds. Trying to reform IP law with Creative Commons to replace copyright, free access to patents to replace trade secr
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
Yeah, I once looked at a Linix CD and was forced to give away my first born.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
Here's where I wish that editors and submitters could be moderated as Trolls.
Does anybody really think that anybody else is going to have something new to say about this, on either side, and generate even a little bit more light than heat?
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
Would anyone care to explain this apparent conflict?
Self-interest, pure and simple. We aren't musicians here on Slashdot. And we want everything for free.
That's plain FUD and not true. You should consider hiring better lawyers.
But if that one line is important enough to be used, then the author has the right to restrict its usage.
On a few occasions at work, I needed some encryption and compression routines that I knew were available in some GPL-licensed libraries. I would have needed to make minor improvements over the existing GPL code for the routines to suite my purposes. However, I could not make use of this opportunity to use and improve the existing code. I think that it is ridiculous that 50 million lines of proprietary code that cost millions of dollars to write should suddenly become available to all just because a 200 line compression routine was used. I would have been more than happy to give back my improvements on the compression routines to the public. Instead, I had to purchase third party software and integrate that into our distribution. It is not the cost of the third party software that's the problem, but that each third party dependency destabilizes our software product and increases maintenance complexity.
OK, I'll change the wording. The author has the right to reasonably restrict its usage. Happy?
It's the General Public License, not GNU Public License.
bgphints - internet routing news, hints and ti
alltogether quite a nice article. nothing most slashdotters didn't know yet, but still rather good.
but for some reason he had to put those nasty exagerations in there, and that's just again an example of partisan and ideological marketing!
the linux kernel is [...] the impossible notion that a bunch of kids on the Internet could create the most successful operating system in history come true.
it wasn't exactly kids and the term "most successful OS" might be swaying a BIT far from the truth!
Once again, it was piracy of public software. Stolen in order to increase Bill Gates' personal fortune. But it was legal theft.
come on, watch your language. don't throw the ridiculous piracy concept back at bill gates and what the hell is "legal theft" supposed to be? this language is no better than the whole "viral license" propaganda!
But Linux is immune to most of the kneecap-busting, air-supply cutting, baby-knifing techniques that Microsoft is so fond of.
i am no fan of microsoft, but i still find this rather harsh. if the article were meant to be journalistic, this would SO not qualify for an objective perspective!
well, all in all i totally agree with the author. but maybe he should cut back on the ideological and radical lingo!
jethr0
This looks so much like a troll because of so many errors, but I'll answer anyway.
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released.
Your lawyers are either idiots or they royally screwed you. You do NOT have to release the source code of programs compiled with GCC. There are absolutely no restrictions on GCC compiled code and even the few (GCC and Libc) libraries your app might be linked to are released under the LGPL. If I'm not seriously mistaken, even the code produced by tools like bison are also restriction free since that is only *usage* of the software and the libraries needed are probably released under the LGPL.
Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult position.
Now you're not being clear. You say " a top online investment firm asked us to do some work using Linux." Was the software supposed to be sold/given away to the general public or only to the online investment firm who would only use it inhouse? If it was supposed to be publically distributed, then yes, you have to release the source code to any modification you have done to the kernel. That's the cost of customisability of the Linux kernel. But if it was only supposed to be given to the online investment firm who would only use it inhouse, then you don't have to distribute the source code to the public. You see, most part of the license applies to redistribution, not modification itself. If you distribute modification to a GPL'ed software to the public, then you have to release its source code. But if you only plan to use it inhouse, then you don't have to give the source code to the public. Or if you sell it to a private customer, then you only have to give the source code to the customer, NOT the public.
Instead, I had to purchase third party software and integrate that into our distribution. It is not the cost of the third party software that's the problem, but that each third party dependency destabilizes our software product and increases maintenance complexity.
Tough. Thats the cost of being a multimillion dollar proprietary software developer: paying for proprietary solutions. Don't like it? Find something else to do or some other way to license your product.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I don't see the FSF lobbying congress to extend the length of copyrights.
Also, you may not have noticed that many people post to Slashdot, thus the posts reflect many disparate views.
Well I'm not going to flame you, but I do think you've missed some of the useful points of the GPL. For one thing, I believe that you actually can use existingly GPL'd code if you negotiate an alternative license with the copyright holder(s) of the code. Admittedly this may sometimes be difficult if there are lots of authors, but given the relatively low number of developers in many projects, I'm not sure if it would be that common. Depending on specifically what part of the code you're interested in, you may not have to contact everyone in a particular GPL'd project.
People tend to release under the GPL because they want to make their work available for use by others, but don't want others to make lots of money from it without giving back. The alternative is that the code may not be available at all.
When I've released some software under the GPL, I've effectively lifted some (but not all) copyright restrictions for anyone who wishes to use it. In doing so, though, I certainly haven't given up my right to choose to lift even more restrictions on my code for certain people. The GPL licence begins with the traditionally restrictive copyright system, and then lifts some restrictions that specifically allow the software to be distributed openly under certain conditions, still protected by copyright law on behalf of the author(s).
There's nowhere in the GPL, however, where it says that copyright holders can't choose to release their code under a different license to a different party if they so choose. Many authors of many projects do exactly this, and I think you'd find that many other authors would consider making their code available for closed source projects if they realised it could be useful and were paid suitable royalties.
My opinion is that the GPL is good because it encourages many people to release their code in situations where it might not otherwise have been made available at all. I don't see how that's a bad thing -- people who want it under closed source conditions can always ask for it and negotiate an alternative agreement. If the authors agree with your small business cause, they might even choose to give it to you for free.
I have never programmed professionally. I've been playing around with c and some other languages for some years though. And I have been using gnu software for about as long. But it wasn't until this christmas that I really realized it's power. I've always been thinking that "sure, open source is a good thing, because then the others who know things can make changes".
But just before christmas I was playing a bit with the new transparency that xorg har brought us, and I was annoyed about the lack of functions in "transset". So I decided to take a look at its code. It turned out the program was very simple and within some hours, without any previous knowladge of Xlib and X-programming, I managed to change its behavoiur the way I wanted. (http://forchheimer.se/transset-df/)
Then I suddenly understood that you don't have to be a super guru who understands all the systems sourcecode to gain from open source. One day there will be some little thing that is bothering you that you actually CAN do something about.
There wasn't a single suitable library released under the LGPL? The LGPL exists for precisely that reason, so I find that hard to believe.
(a subset, at least)
- I don't like it when my favorite apps go away. Until I have grey hair and fake kidneys I will miss the ultra-fast, ultra-simple WriteNow word processor, which was my high-school-and-college favorite, and which ran fast even on what are now pitifully slow machines. Open source apps may go away, too, but generally there are better, sleeker replacements which (kicker) open the same file formats, because the Unix philosophy and GNU have the same good things about Unix-type things in mind, including saving to plainish formats. (Often possible, rarely the default, with proprietary software).
- I like frequent upgrades and bug fixes. And while it's not the simplest thing to balance, I mostly prefer some instability (as in, trying new versions of Mozilla, especially the versions of 5 years ago, say) with the attendant improvements in the next versions than sticking with, say, Netscape. [insert your own favorite stable-but-moribund application.]
- It's nice to be able to give to friends [F/f]ree software, and to make (however minor) suggestions to developers. Some open source developers are as rude and unaccomodating as typical proprietary software makers are impersonal and stand-offish (and some proprietary makers are downright friendly!), but I've seen small text improvements made in some cases an hour or so after pointing out a spelling or grammar problem on a project web site. That's responsive in a way that giant software makers don't really have the capability to be.
- Related to that last point: I believe that developers have the right to control their invented software. I don't want to use software *against* the wishes of its creators.(1) If you want to write some software to control Whooznit Manufacturing Units (or process words), with secret source, proprietary storage formats, and a very large pricetag, then Fine. I just don't have to use it. GPL- (and BSD-, and many other licenses) licensed software is explicitly free to use and give away. No developer *has* to use such licenses -- they have a range of moral choices open to them -- but I don't want illegally install one copy of Windows on several machines, even if I find it a moral non-issue if I'm the only one using them, and they're only being used one at a time. Easier and saner to use software that is more flexible; I can have Mepis, Knoppix and Red Hat on any / all of several machines,(2) with the full consent of the makers. It's nicer to visit at a friend's place than evade an angry landowner while sleeping in his guest bedroom, especially when he doesn't have a guest bedroom.
timothy
(1) Are there edge cases, and finer points? Yes. For instance, I own DVDs which some aspect of their "creator" -- the DVDCCA that is -- wants me to be unable to watch on a Linux box. Too bad for them, their case doesn't win my mind, so unlike the case of using (for instance) a non-legit copy of Windows, I feel not bad at all about watching movies with Mplayer or Xine. Also, using software illegally is in some cases about as horrifying to me as taking the occasional shortcut through private property. You can believe in the primacy of private property without denying all shades of grey in the world.
(2) Mac OS X is a near exception here; since it's included with (nearly) all the hardware that will happily run it -- as things stand, at least! -- there is no dilemma of trying to put it on my other machines (besides my iBook, that is) without permission. And I wouldn't feel at all bad about the experimentation of running it in a virtual machine on a Linux box, and I suspect no one at Apple would either.
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
There's no need to personify Linux... Yeah it rocks, but it's just a kernel!
That 200 line algorithm was probably just written by one or two persons.
Did you contact them and offer them money for a license to you and promised to release your changes under GPL
The point is I could have benefited and at the same time made a contribution back to the community if my company didn't have to give up the entire farm.
By your list of evil deeds, it would seem that everyone, everywhere is evil.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
The LGPL was designed to allow you to do exactly what you want to do. A library writer who choose the GPL over the LGPL for his license is simply not interested in non-free software using his library. He is "refusing" to sell it to you.
BTW you could just contact the author and ask for a commercial version (perhaps in exchange for money).
It's because the GPL uses IP in an attempt to simulate a world without IP. In order to effectively create this simulation in the real world, they have to enforce the IP mechanisms that they use for that purpose. It's an ironic situation, but it's not really a genuine contradiction. It's the closest mapping of their goals onto the current reality.
This what happens with typos.
Remember to read the small prints as well.
Zed: Nothing is ever easy
GPL doesn't make things free as in beer, just free as in freedom.
So, yes, you are correct, grandparent is mistaken in the application of the GPL.
This is a legitimate post, but there is a fallacy here. If the person had not written the library in the first place, you still wouldn't be able to use it. If they had written it as a commercial package, you'd still have to pay.
This is wanting your cake and eating it too. You want someone to give away their work with no strings attached---but you don't want to give away yours. Sure, some may out of kindness or mercy license things under the LGPL. But either you can afford the money for something commercial, or you can afford the time, or you shouldn't complain. You don't have unrestricted right to someone else's code and time.
Of course, if you called the guy up and offered him $1500 for an LGPL license... he'd probably oblige, and you both benefit.
If you released your own code, you both benefit, as does the rest of the world. (And you're still free to sell the art, sound, music, and other media that makes the full game.)
That is the point of the GPL.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
No, it did not really cross my mind at the time. I will consider this option should I come into a similar situation in future.
The holders of music IP is rarely the artist. Just as the holders of software IP (for large commercial software) is rarely the programmer. A better analogy would be the status of bootlegs of concerts (where the artist usually does retain rights) and small and independent software (where the programmer usually does retain rights).
This is a shortsighted view. The public domain can is an easy feeding ground for corporate america. And the truth is, no matter how "important" one's contribution is, nothing can prevent it's misuse by an evil corporate entity if it's determined to do so.
The best way to protect against this type of abuse, is to use the GPL.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Has it occurred to you that not everyone sees the world in the same terms as you? That's the wonder of the Internet: you get to interact with lots of different types of people; people whose motivations are different from yours. The reason for GPLing some software is to ensure that the freedoms the author passes on to the recipients of the software are preserved for anyone who might receive it later, no matter where they get it from. It doesn't relate even slightly to people making money on the software. And the GPL doesn't help to preserve control over software (obviously) because anyone who receives the software has freedom to modify it in any way they like.
What has charity got to do with it?
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
How does the GPLs stand up to corporations ?
So many companies will never give a crap about ethics, about the philosophy behind Free software, to them its all about getting something for nothing.
Free software is good because developer equality creates strong communities.
Quite often companies wont afford their employees time to integrate their work with the community, this minimises the contributions the company can make to the community.
Free software is a long term benefit, this causes a conflict of interest with buisness as they are usually not capable of looking further than 3 months ahead.
Many individuals who release software under the GPL dont have the resources to defend it, so the license is practically meaningless.
If you are considering using the GPL you should seriously consider assigning copyright to the FSF, they have the resources to defend it.
If you want to stand up to corporations choose a non commercial license.
If you want higher quality software choose a free software licence.
Allot of people like to think that if you create an environment that is conducive to business and commerce, then freedom and prosperity will follow.
I think just the opposite, I think when you create an environmet that is conducive to freedom and liberty (in this case, not coercively limit what people can copy using the force of government) Then that will create prosperity on it's own and lead to new markets and new opportunities that could never be gained before.
It's quite possible that Microsoft is still using the exact same code, but simply removed all the copyright notices as allowed by the amended BSD licence.
What kind of bullshit is this?
You CAN'T remove the copyright notices by the code that is under a BSD license.
This has nothing to do with the removal of the "advertising clause".
You CAN'T relicense any code that isn't either written by you or put in the public domain.
If you use any BSD code in your software, you MUST give credit to the author by distributing the BSD license along with your software, because that license is *still* covering the code you imported.
Sorry if I used bold but this misunderstanding is quite widespread, and it's just fostered by the stupidity of those claiming, or implying, that BSD code can be "stolen".
Would you mind learning to promote your favourite license (in this case, GPL) without spreading FUD over other licenses like MIT or BSD?
You know, nobody is forcing people to post comments when they don't know a goddamn thing of what they're talking about.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
If I had mod points, I would mod you up. Everyone brings up the example of microsoft using BSD tools...but those BSD tools not only still exist in Net, Free, Open, Dragonfly BSD, and Darwin, but they exist in a more modern, usable form than they do in the standard Microsoft commandline tools. As long as people are interested in a project it will be developed, no matter what open source license is slapped on it. The only thing that kills a project is disinterest, and the GPL doesn't protect against that.
There's the quote we all know about capitalism that says "it is not perfect, but it is the least flawed system we know". For open source software, this is exactly what a lot of people (myself included) think of the GPL. [ My apologies for paraphrasing and the lack of proper attribution ]
At the same time, a lot of people dislike or even hate the GPL. In my view, their opinions usually come down to the fact that there really is no general example of how to make a business of open source software development. To people who's primary concern is the business of software development, the wealth of GPL software is a false wealth, it's analogous to teasing a baby with candy that it can not have. This seems especially true for entrepreneurs, for whom the bootstrapping potential of open source systems is always a huge temptation. The reality is that when an software entrepreneur deals with the "money people", the ideals of free software go out the window pretty quick, because they have to justify their existense with some kind of asset, usually of the IP (intellectual property) variety. This pretty much eliminates the possibilty of using GPL software, because it prevents them from claiming the degree of ownership of the code they produce that investers demand. Paradoxicallly, the situation that some of the biggest current backers of open source software (especially GPL) are giants like IBM. They have loads of assets, and lawyers, and all the rest. Where it makes sense to them, and right now it does a lot, they are willing and able to play by the open soure rules.
I consider myself an open source advocate, but I can sympathize with the business issues, especially entrepreneurial ones. After all, the GPL is espcially good a protecting the rights of the little guy, which in the business world are the entrepreneurs. I think the world desparately requires a working, repeatable business model for (open source) software development--one that spans the whole corporate life cycle. I just don't see one today, and I don't see how to make the GPL business friendly without breaking it.
On the other hand, I only have limited sympathy for the software profession, and the defacto standard model for the software business. The truth is that the majority of what we produce is utter crap. In light of this, I think it is paramount that as a profession, we do everything possible to ensure that software gets better, and good software is as unhindered as possible in getting better and making it to end users. I know of no technology that I believe can achieve this better or even close to the open source process. The GPL is the center of mass for that process. So yes, the GPL isn't perfect, but for now, I say, tough. It is the best we have.
I do not want to sound like a "me too!" post but I wanted to add something to the debate. the GPL is great for stand-alone applications like web servers and databases. It does not work well or as well for libraries like glibc unless the entire program that links to it is also GPL. This is where the LGPL shines.
The reason why I advocate free software has nothing to do with charity but everything with freedom:
It is fundamentally unjust to lock in my users and to deprive them of the possibility to use my programs in ways I didn't imagine or to choose another path in using them. That's why I choose a license for my software which ensures that my users have those freedoms now and in the future.
while (!asleep()) sheep++
> Literally hundreds or thousands of programmers that used
> to charge for their services now work for free. Definitely
> an improvement over the old days where you had to buy every little utility.
Yeah, an improvement for everyone except the programmers... Although, it's not like you could sell "any little utility" in the old days either.
For fuck's sake, it's not your routine! You don't get to say what is ridiculous about it! It's as meaningless as saying that it's ridiculous that your customers should all have to buy Microsoft Windows (or whatever OS your software runs on) to run your 50 million lines of code.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
I spent roughly 80 hours a week for 2 years of the prime of my life developing an application. I rewrote virtually 80% of the 150,000 line C++ codebase. In short, it was forked by very hostile and childish people who continually kry [sic] "Leave us alone" at my program's site, lol.
The hostile fork started when I was personally targeted by the MPAA for my development efforts on 23 August, 2003
The GPL provides *zero* possibilities for overcoming hostile forks. If they want to copy your CVS (and keep their's private) they can effectively publish your own code before you release your program...which technically makes it "their" code. You cannot obfuscate code in order to get an advantage because the GPL forbids this.
How they won the battle was a systemmatic assault of every website comment section (just search for "xmule and comment") on the internet, attacking both myself (Un-Thesis | HopeSeekr) and the program. When this fails my program's site (www.xmule.ws) is routinely DDoS'd, the worst occuring when our original domain (www.xmule.org) was DDoS'd for approximately THREE months and had its DNS hijacked because of it.
Use the OSSAL dual licensed with the Creative Commons License to defeat the GPL! CCL is JUST AS FREE as the GPL (including no commercialization of *straight copies*) yet doesn't have the viral clause. OSSAL License expressly prevents the use of OSSAL code in GPLd products.
For detailed description of the difference between xMule and its hostile fork, see The Coding Philosophies of aMule and xMule . For a summary of some of the most blatant attacks against xMule by this fork, see Part III: On Hostile Forks.
Sincerely,
Ted R. Smith | HopeSeekr
Promote freedom; fight fascism.
What they are concered about is that derived works remain free. X is perfect example. The original X code was available for anyone it just didn't run on any of the workstations that were in use in the 1990s. The result was that X code as it existed in use was propietery and unfree. Users did not have freedom.
GPL was designed to prevent a repeat of this.
but then it came to my mind: O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of my nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. I had won the victory over myself. I loved the GPL.
I like GPL as much as any other slashdot open-source enthusiast - however I find that this is just very shameless self-advertisement..
If you like the ego bost of having a company like Microsoft take your code, close it off to you and make big money charging you (among other people) for access to your own code under their onerous EULAs, -- and if that ego boost is way more important than having your code free and useful to the entire community that uses it (and able to come back to you), then the BSD license is for you.
This is so wrong and clueless that it's actually funny.
Look: I'm *glad* that Microsoft monopoly is coming to an end. Not because I hate Microsoft or Bill Gates (I happen not to be an envious person..) but simply because *monopoly is bad* for everybody. So, the sooner it ends, the better. And GPL, notwithstanding the communistic principles that are behind it, is surely helping that moment to come a bit sooner: good.
But, I'll list here all the nonsense contained in the ridiculous sentence (it's just one sentence!) I quoted.
1) Microsoft can't "take your code". They can *use* it, if they give you proper credits by distributing your BSD license along with *any* software that contains your code. They *must* do it.
2) Microsoft can't "close it off". Your code of course remains free (truly free, IMHO, since it's BSD-licensed). The only thing that they can close off is their own modifications (i.e. *their own* code).
3) Microsoft can't "charge you for access to your own code". They can charge you for their modified versions. And of course, the market laws apply: if their modifications aren't *worth* the price they're charging, nobody's gonna buy their crap.
Get a clue. Please.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
First off, companies are about people, it is colsed licenses that seperate companies from people. If I am in a business and I run Linux, I can share it everywhere, at home, at work, with friends, try doing that with a closed sorce product. The GPL unites business and people, and that is one reason why it has been so successfull in the marketplace.
Second off, right now, this very day - I can open a business and roll my own operating system for a few $1000 dollars of work. It can be a ksiok, it can be a platform that runs some special hardware, whatever - the point is that power enables 1000's of small businesses that would likely have had to spend millions otherwise - the GPL is anything but anti-business.
Third, I am allowing you to do things I don't aprove of - TO YOURSELF, but when you take code and information that was given to you freely by all of us, and then fence it off, and then start threatening my friends and neighbors with copyright lawsiuts - and then get angry because we now use a license that won't let you do what you "want to do" - well sorry. Tough shit.
I know how trendy it is for lefties to bash corporations while ignoring things like computers, cars, money to buy food, and other benefits. But with Open Source (which I support and have progrmamed for in the past) the programmer gets nothing. No tangible pay to support a family. Nothing to put food on the table or clothe or house anyone. But working for MicroSoft, I can very well become a millionaire, which happens to thousands of Microsoft employees. The "little guy" working for MS is screwed less than the "little guy" doing it for free in my opinion. So the argument that somehow this is David vs. Goliath isn't really relevant. Or put another way, Golitath is actually a pretty generous guy.
Hi Troll. For the benefit of normal people reading this, I figure I'd better debunk your gibberish.
"It seems that most GPL developers are so scared that someone is going to take their software and make money on it - or worse still, take control over their project."
The GPL doesn't stop you making money from software. Plenty of people make money from other people's GPLed software. Linus does it. Alan Cox does it. Red Hat does it, Novell, IBM, Cygnus and a cast of thousands all do it. And if YOU want to make money from GPL'ed software, you're more than welcome to do so. There's nothing in the GPL that will stop you. In fact, trying to put a restriction that stops someone making a profit on GPLed code is itself a GPL breach.
Similarly, any GPLed software project is eminently forkable by anyone anywhere. It's true that forks of GPLed projects are rare (not impossible - emacs/xemacs springs to mind) but that's because it's in the interests of GPL coders to co-operate with each other.
What you can't do with GPLed software is take someone else's work released to you under the GPL, stick a EULA on it, and threaten people with state violence for sharing it without your permission.
Just because the bosses of most proprietary software companies make most of their money from threatening people with jail time for sharing other people's work, doesn't mean you should be allowed to do so.
The GPL is nothing to do with charity or making money. It's everything to do with freedom. See?
This is a troll but a consulting company giving code to a corporation constitutes distribution. They woud have to give them the code. The corporation that recieved the code could then either keep it or distribute it to anyone they gave the code to....
You've been trolled:
m andrake/browse_thread/thread/51bafe7c724a8395/e90d 0ef6ecb1717f?q=Linux's+lack+of+Token+Ring+support& _done=%2Fgroups%3Fq%3DLinux's+lack+of+Token+Ring+s upport%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN%26t ab%3Dwg%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#e90d0ef6ec b1717f
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.os.linux.
I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source"
You mean the "Shared Source" that doesn't allow you to recompile it, and only allows source code to go to a select few? I know you're a troll, but what you're talking about is BS, and could be done under a BSD license.
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released.
Your lawyers are either incompetent or are trying to fuck you over.
What are you talking about, I work with companies that make money using Linux all the time. And frankly, they don't want controll over Linux, I've never worked for a company in the opperating system business.
I don't care if you make money from GPL'd code - what I care about is that if I make a piece of code available to you freely - that you won't turn arround, fence off a slightly modified copy of it, and then start to sue my friends and neighbors who use it for "copyright" infringement. Maybe you think I'm a coward for not giving you that "right", well go to hell.
Um... no. The GPL makes things free as in restrictions. There is no freedom in sight.
Hey, dumbshit. Is a resctiction on restrictions also a restriction?
No, it isn't.
As a consultant I known a thousand of companies that use free software to do its job but don't contribute to the software maker (that is the guy that develop software based on GPL). I thought that there's must exist a campaign on this larger companies to donate $$ to the software developers.
http://www.michel.eti.br
First, I assume YOU were abiding by the GPL, and your derivative code was either in-house (not distributed) or likewise under the GPL.
... something that license gives you the right to do).
... and a little expensive)
So using GPL'ed software written by others can indeed be dangerous because when it's offered in a way to the public by someone but not meant to be used like described in the GPL - e.g. misunderstanding.
Dangerous? DANGEROUS? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Using the GPL is very, very SAFE. If this person didn't understand the license they released their software in, they have only themselves to blame. The license is there, written in black and white, in plane English (and translated into assorted other languages). The FSF has detailed information on the GPL, how it works, what it implies, what freedoms it insures, etc.
The author was in no more danger using a license he didn't understand (the GPL) than he would have been using another license he didn't understand (a knockoff copy of Microsoft's license, edited for himself, the Artistic License, the FreeBSD license, or any of a dozen others).
You were in absolutely no more danger (other than having to endure an unpleasant social episode) than you would have been had you been using FreeBSD licensed code (if you think that idiot took exception to your using his code in your project, imagine if he'd licensed it under the FreeBSD license and you'd used it in a proprietary program
Can he sue you? In the USA, you bet! You can be sued by anyone, for any reason, and have to go through the trouble of going to court. I was sued by a dog owner who moved into our no-dog building with a pit-bull when the building decided to enforce the rules and started fining the prick. (The building had been a no dog building since the early 1980s, it was clearly stated in the condo docs, and the owner knew this. But, he was an intellectual property attorney and he knows how to bully. Not that it got him very far, but he did get to use his law partner at no cost while I and others in the building ran up legal bills defending ourselves against his frivolous suit. It was satisfying to put the nonsense to rest once and for all, however, even it the process was annoying as hell
The GPL certainly doesn't put you in any danger you aren't already in when you decide to crawl out of your home and face the public each day (or craw up to your computer and do so virtually, via the Internet), and it protects you against a great many things other licenses (mostly prorpietary ones) do not.
This doesn't mean there aren't incompetent jackasses in the world who will bluster, threaten, and maybe even sue, but implying that the license has anything whatsoever to do with their incompetence, or their litigiousness, is simply nonsense.
Oh, and by the way, if he had sued, your victory would have been a slam dunk. The GPL does offer you very potent protection, something many other licenses do not.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
It's not about charity. It's about sharing, co-developement, openness and educating. M$ doesn't share back so they are not worth sharing with. M$ has their thing and we have ours. .... and we are OK with that.
Perhaps the monopoly is not OK with it???
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
You know, the communisim that I renember was about controlling the information that people have access to at all costs. In that sense, the GPL is about freedom, and Microsoft is about commuinisim.
Also, what the hell does a government backed monopoly that coerces what people can or can't copy have to do with property rights? Answer: nothing - property rights derive from the fact that property has physical limits and that not everybody can use it at the same time. Copyrights derive from kings who granted publishers a monopoly in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. The copyrights=property argument is propaganda, plain and simple.
The GPL is not for you. It is also not for M$.
RTFL (read the fucking license) before you use it.
also, you can write and release proprietary code that runs on GPL'ed OS's. You just need to know how to do it. Try googling. Try not speading FUD and ignorance about the subject.
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
seen in other threads ALMOST word for word.
stupid lameness filter. it's a troll. swear. honest.
'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
Let me get this straight:
*I can make a piece of code.
*Put it out there for people to use freely.
*Someone can come along and fence it off with their own license
*Then they can sue any of my freinds or neighbors who use that copy of or a derivative of it for copyright infringement.
Well WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD ANYBODY WANT TO DO THAT!!!!
Thats what the gist of the BSD tools argument is about, having better tools has nothing to do with it.
I'm not thinking that because I know the history of the open source and free software movements better than to credit the GNU General Public License to the open source movement. As RMS pointed out to someone wanting to help trademark GCC to help the "open source community":
Speaking more specifically to what Joe Barr said, it is a relatively trivial thing to create a set of rules and list a license as conforming to those rules, than to write the license and define a movement. By the time the open source movement came into existence, the GPL was in widespread use. The ideas the GPL speaks of (software freedom, chief among them) are the ideas the open source movement was founded, in part, to move away from.
As the FSF explains quite clearly, the open source movement was started by people who wanted to "sell" free software to business and thought that freedom talk would get in the way. So they droppped it and pursued a different philosophy which is essentially a development methodology.
As the essay also indicates, the term "open source" is no more clear to people at first blush than "free software", hence it is not really an improvement on free software at all. I'd argue that open source is actually considerably weaker than free software because open source proponents are sometimes compelled to argue for software that doesn't qualify as open source. Their insistence on technical achievement (borne from their devotion to speaking to business) makes an odd message to send to others. Free software proponents are never put in the position of stumping for proprietary software because proprietary software, by definition, doesn't give users freedom. The goal is not to pursue technological achievements at the expense of software freedom. Technological improvement will happen over time, but freedom may not if we don't work to preserve it.
Then perhaps you'd be willing to consider giving GNU a share of the credit, since the GNU GPL came from the need to ensure software freedom for covered works and their derivatives. The Linux kernel is a fine and useful program, but it is not the entirety of the OS, and Linus Torvalds' political views on software matters--pragmatism, basically--are not that of the GNU project, the free software movement, or those who appreciate software freedom. It is ahistorical to give his views sole credit (essentially, crediting him for work he did not do) and to lead people to look to his philosophy when explaining the importance of the entire operating system of which the Linux kernel is a part.
Digital Citizen
This wasn't a troll. I understand the GPL. I understand its aims. Still, you can't tell me that something in the public domain isn't more free than something released under the GPL. It's just not. The GPL places specific restrictions on how I can use the code. Software in the public domain has no restrictions.
People write "free" software for different reasons - some as a hook to sell "supported" or "commercial" versions, but most just to contribute to the greater good. These are the folks that I'm addressing: If you are creating software for others to freely use, make it truly free.
Congrats, you have just explained exactly why the GPL has caused a shift in public RnD away from the government sector and back to the private sector where it has always belonged. At a time where most private RnD efforts are being cut back, ventures like OSDL are taking off. IMHO, this is just the beginning.
the "communism" you're likely talking about is better described as fascism, which is very, very bad. and never works. thats why fascist states always collapse.
to marx, it is the people who must elect to move toward communism. not just any people, but a well-educated, value-producing people with a representational government. atleast, marx suggests representational government, i believe either he or lenin disregarded it as unfeasable, though.
from a neo-marxist standpoint, both microsoft and the opensource community are clearly communist constructions. (privitization, etc)
therein lies your statement regarding microsoft and communism: microsoft is a hierarchial fascism (a natural state of bussinesses, really, not just "evil bad thing" fascism), but internally a communist organization (also a natural state of bussinesses).
whereas the opensource community, as it conglomerates around different projects, builds small, representational organizations both administered and populated entirely by what is essentially a modern proletariat - computer programmers. the internet, and the attempt to release programs freely therein, allows people to produce value whilst simultaneously having no "property". the quality of infinite multiplicity, as you suggest, plays a significant role in the feasability of property-less value.
what i mean is, when a programmer creates a gpl'd program, he creates something of value while retaining only (essentially) honorary property rights on it. and that makes a programmer a member of the proletariat (proletariat literally means "those without property"), to the extent of that program's sphere.
thus, the opensource community is really communism, as it is the self-organization of a proletariat. and it's a self-representational communism (the first of its kind?), well juxtaposed against the fascist communism of most modern bussiness models.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
I will admit I like the GPL for some things. Example: My girlfriend and I were searching high and low for a copy of the book The Science of Getting Rich online the other day. The book of course is 90 odd years old, and we knew it was in the public domain. However, the only place where we were able to find it was on Wikisource where it was licensed under the GFDL. This sort of application is where copyleft really shines...in that it allows people to make derivative works, but simply serves to prevent the original work from being removed from the public domain. In the case of The Science of Getting Rich you might be wondering what I mean...A particular woman has set up a website and is making money selling a number of products based around Wattles' philosophy as espoused in that book. Great, you say. Where's the problem there? The problem is that Wikisource was the only place I could find the book...and it wasn't through lack of searching, either...we scoured both Google and eMule. I strongly suspect that a number of people who were making money from derivative works of the book had taken pains to make sure the original wasn't available online, in order to prevent others from also making money from derivative works in the same way they had. It is highly lamentable that keeping such public domain works available in practice requires legal enforcement...but apparently it does.
Something on the other hand that bothers me about the GPL in particular is the confusion that has arisen apparently in a lot of people's minds about software being free as in speech as opposed to free as in beer. I wouldn't know how many times I've seen someone suggesting the idea of selling GPL licensed software, while being perfectly happy about also making source available, only to have some misinformed fanatic materialise out of the woodwork and begin screeching about how it is supposedly a violation of the license to DARE to try and make money with it, as well as being demonically evil in the process.
If there are any such fanatics reading this comment, immediately go and read this, and educate yourselves. <heavy sarcasm> It flowed from the immaculate keyboard of your spiritual leader himself as well, so you can be comforted that it is authoritative on the subject. It so happens, incidentally, that the Prophet was actually selling copies of Emacs on tape for a few hundred bucks each at some point in the 80s, so I'm assuming he himself obviously isn't opposed to using GPL licensed software to make money, even if you are.</heavy sarcasm>
If anyone wants a long analysis of the GPL vs BSD debate: Social aspects of the BSD vs. GPL debate (the notes) and Labyrinth of Software Freedom (the paper).
Yeah, but without a license obligating you to give you back that code, do you think your company would have allowed you to give it back? Or do you think you would have taken the risk to give back the code without telling your company about it?
One can make the long-term argument that just as all businesses eventually gravitate towards a monopoly. All payware eventually gravitates towards DRM.
:-)
Yes, there was a time when grocery stores routinely sold out of date products and misrepresented the contents on the label. Then we passed some food safety laws, and now they don't. There will be always companies scumming customers or having unwanted social effects. We just have to push back through laws and consumer education. But it's not inherently wrong for me to make something and sell it to other people
I don't know what Locke said about property, but I do know that just because people label somthing a "property right" - doesn't mean that it is. For years people screamed about slave ownership as a property right, and that it was "free market", and so on ... it was all crap and had nothing to do with property and everything to do with controll.
Also about communisim, perhaps I should have called it Marxisim, because the whole idea was never voluntary community based at all. The bottom line is though, that no matter how "enlightened" the origanal approach was, it involved coercive power over just behavior....
Maybe I had the will to create a shoe factory, maybe I had the resources and knowhow too, but if that "enlightened planner" decided otherwise then it was DOA.
... when you have that kind of power, bad things happen, and they did. When it comes to restricting what people coppy, Microsoft clearly has the power to make bad things happen, and they will. As for that kind of potential to abuse power in the GPL community .... there is none.
* freedom matters *
The FSF favors the GPL for libraries over the LGPL.
Fact of the matter is that that's really the way that capitalism was meant to work under Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (considered by many to be the godfather of modern capitalism. Under his view, big multinational corporations were (are) no different than big government -- both result in centralized decision making which warps local economies.
What the GPL does is it forces decision-making back down to the local levels and prevents a big company from controlling the entire market by force. This is actually far closer to real capitalism than either Microsoft's market-warping monopoly. And also far closer to closer to capitalism than it it is to Stalin's market-warping communism.
It's also far more intrinsically democratic than either.
So, the next time Gates & company starts screaming 'communist', respond
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Yeah, but without a license obligating you to give you back that code, do you think your company would have allowed you to give it back?
It happens much more often than you think. IBM gives a lot to Apache, for example, without any such obligation.
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released.
/. :-)
:-)
That is somewhat undecided by the courts.
My hunch is that if you write software, then compile, etc. it using the GPL'ed tools then you do not have to release the code.
However, if you are using static (rather than dynamically linked) libraries then you may have to. But personally, I would argue whatever is in your interests [i.e. keep the code secret and make a profit or help greater mankind].
It is still disputed.
It's a matter of interpretation.
It is a matter that should be clarified in the GPL license.
Finally, I think you should hire a better firm of lawyers. Or... just get advice from all the techno nerdy lawyers on
BTW, I haven't sat down and read the GPL license fully. So, please feel welcome to politely correct me if I am wrong
Nice troll. There are a _lot_ of programmers on Slashdot, and like musicians, we create "works" which are used & appreciated by non-programmers.
And some of us (who actually understand capitalism better than the so-called "intellectual property" advocates) believe that if we want someone to pay us money, then we should actually have to WORK for it - by providing the service of programming in return for compensation.
Only greedy people think they should get paid every time their work is copied, and not just the first time they sell it to someone.
"I understand the GPL."
If that's true, why did you say those idiotic things in your last post? Were you DELIBERATELY spreading bogus anti-GPL fud, and if so, why?
"Still, you can't tell me that something in the public domain isn't more free than something released under the GPL"
Yes, the GPL has more restrictions. But those are restrictions on putting more restrictions on that software and depriving software users of their freedom. You might feel the need to offer people software that threatens them with jailtime for sharing information, that's your choice. It's obnoxious for you to demand that I work to help you do it.
I think that the analagous distinctions in real life are those that sometimes crop up in between 'license' and 'liberty'. Is a free society one where there are no restrictions at all on anyone's behaviour? Where I can kill someone or take them prisoner or force them to work for me? Or is a free society one where everyone is prevented from taking anyone else's freedom away?
You seem to be arguing for the virtual form of the former, and you seem to want other people to work to help you bring it about, for free.
I thought that Microsoft had violated the RFC, but the version of Kerberos they use was written entirely in-house. I am having trouble confirming or denying the latter. Does anyone have knowledge about it?
I see no reason for Linux fans to be jizzing in one another's faces. It can be assumed that a person knows of if not likes the GPL based on the fact that they are reading Slashdot, there is no need for the mutual masterbation.
Now, before someone goes calling this flamebait, think about it. Was this article informative? Was it insightful? Was it news? Was it even interesting? I say no, this was a GNUist saying that they agree with themselves.
I infact disagree with the idea that the GPL protects some magical freedom to edit code, I don't think that such a freedom exists. I believe that the right is given to people under the terms of a license and that the license ensures that the right remains for anyone else.
The article says the public domain does not protect this magical freedom, yet the original code will always remain in the public domain as it was released. The code is not going anywhere, if someone takes it and improves it that does not suddenly remove the original from the public domain.
Anyways, to end my rant, I feel that this article was completely needless and uninspired.
I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
There is an old joke, with many variations around the 'net, that goes something like this:
One day, Mega Corp.'s mainframe stops working. As it's an old system that's been running for years, their own support staff are at a loss about how to fix it, so they call a consultant who used to work for them when the system was first set up.
The consultant comes in and looks around the system for a minute. Then he takes out a piece of chalk and draws a big X on one of the boards. "That's your problem, right there," he tells them. "Replace that board and everything will be fixed. That'll be $100,000, please."
Stunned that anyone could ask so much money for a minute's work, the senior support guy asks for an invoice. "Sure," says the consultant, and he writes down the following:
Sometimes the last step really is worth more than everything that went before it, and being able to take it is a valuable thing.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
This is absolutely contrary to the GPL philosophy, but is basically how computer software has worked for the past 50 years or so. Since the introduction of the "Independent Software Vendor". What the GPL proposes is that these people cannot exist and the common user cannot benefit from their labors. Instead, the common user is supposed to support someone paying for "support" that in a properly-written application wouldn't be needed. And, they also have the benefit of obtaining the source code which they will never understand, perhaps so they can pay (yet again) some contractor to modify something that should have been capable of doing the job properly in the first place.
Lastly, what the GPL does allow and encourage is for someone to take the publicly distributed source code and create something from all that research. OK, so they don't exactly copy the code - just use the knowledge contained in it. Just extract the value (or the IP) that is there and use it to create their own product which isn't GPL'ed. Not happening? If it isn't it is just because nobody really believes there is anything worth taking away from the currently GPL'ed codebase that is there.
Cowardly? Yet another who doesn't understand.
The GPL is the "gift that keeps on giving". It ensures that you work, and any work based on your work is freely distributable throughout the community.
Any enhancements or improvements done to your code is free to everyone, including yourself. In this respect, it helps keep software evolving.
How is that cowardly?
True, with a less restrictive liscense like BSD your code can be plucked by anyone. But enhancements and improvements might not make it back to the community. Any company can pick up that code and modify it and sell it. But at the same time, they don't have to release that code back to the original developer(s). Worse, they can lock you out of your own IP. As an example, they develope a feature you were thinking about but they went and got a patent on it before you had time to implement it. Unless you come up with a different implementation, your free code can't contain that feature.
With GPL, the innovations come back. People contribute, the program gets better, more people use it, suggestions are made, people contribute, rinse wash repeat.
I don't see how you get "cowardly" out of that. The GPL isn't about preventing corporations from making money (indeed you can sell GPL software), it's more about keeping the software innovation process alive and open. It ensures they ability of the developers to keep developing and improving without the fear that company XYZ is going to patent their software.
The GPL is very empowering when you understand it.
But the liscense may not be right for you or you're project. You might want the widest distribution of your code. In that case, choose BSD. You might not want your code distributed without payment. In that case choose a commercial liscense.
However, before you start deriding the GPL, please RTFL and understand it first.
Otherwise, you just sound like a braying ass.
~X~
~X~
We have no idea if someone else would have written another compiler, but we do know that GCC is still the chief (if not the only) free software compiler. GCC was developed for the purpose of furthering software freedom, initially written by RMS.
GNU was not "centric to open source" because GNU predates the open source movement by over a decade. But the open source movement got its start by building on what the free software movement had built in those years.
Finally, the namecalling seals the deal: I think your post deserves a flamebait or troll moderation.
Digital Citizen
That's not what I was implying. I was asking about *his* company. Most big companies I know don't give back code unless it's their CEO or their PR department's doing.
IBM, Xerox PARC, google, those are the exceptions -- not the rule.
So I should be able to put Linux into my own proprietary OS if I fix something in their scheduler? Everyone benefits. That's basically your argument.
It's unfair to characterize my earlier statements as "idiotic". The idea of sharing those sentiments on /. may in fact have been idiotic, but the statements were all fair.
I'm not arguing that anyone should do anything. Just as it's Microsoft's right to release Word as a closed-source application, it's a GPL developer's right to release under that license.
It's my contention that there's often a knee-jerk reaction - due to the popularity and chic of the GPL - that people use that license to "give away" their software, when they really haven't considered their aims. If their aim is to encourage the eocsystem of the sort-of-free-but-free-in-our-sandbox GPL economy, then the GPL makes sense. If, however, their goal is to give away their work as a gift to the greater community, then I think that aim is served by releasing code into the public domain - or at very least with a BSD-ish license.
Take for example something like GIMP - released under the GPL, it results in a fair image editing program, but one practically available only to the subset of the world's users who understand what it is, how to find it, and how to use it. If, however, GIMP were released into the public domain, it would in short order raise the quality of every image editing program on the planet - and reduce their costs - all without losing the availability of the program itself. Under which scenario does the world's computing community benefit most? My money's on the latter.
I have been using linux for the past 2 years. Before that, even on windows, I was using GPL softwares like Vim and MikTeX.
What I find the most interesting is that supporting and believing in GPL movement inculcates in us the noble values of sharing , openness, large heartedness which are becoming more and more rare in this fast paced and materialistic world.
For example, In these times of software patents and widespread consumerism, encouraging school children to embrace the use of GPLed softwares can teach them that sharing what they have with others is really cool. And I am sure they will eventually extend this principle to all walks of life which will make our society better place to live in.
ravee
--
http://linuxhelp.blogspot.com
Linux Help
for all things on Linux
In fact, while i run virtually entirely on open source software on my desktop, the only major piece of software I use regularly that jumps to mind which is GPL is KDE. (Though no doubt quite a few of its dependencies which I don't pay much attention to are GPL... but like many have pointed out, it seems GPL is the 'default' open source licence for a lot of people just because they aren't lawyers and don't want to think about it.)
I meant modifying BSD code.
"Just because the bosses of most proprietary software companies make most of their money from threatening people with jail time for sharing other people's work, doesn't mean you should be allowed to do so."
now this is just false and you know it. Why try and refute something you don't agree with by using some argument that is pretty much complete horse shit. most software companies make money by selling software. Almost all do actually and no major company makes a majority of its money from lawsuits(or as you put it, threatening people with jail time for using works whose copyright control is in their hands). Well, I guess it depends on your time scale. If IBM wins 100,000 dollars for infringement, I guess over htat one nano second as the money is transferred they made all their money from law suits. But not in any other way.
If the GPL is about freedom, then so be it. Its fine, but you know, so is the BSD lisence, its about complete freedom. Anyone can take this and do anything they want with it. That is about as free as it gets. The GPL on the other hand represents a different kind of freedom. More restrictive but guaranteeing of rights for much longer into the future.
and you know, you can't under any lisence take someone elses work, stick a EULA on it and sue someone for infringement on your copyright. You can sue them if they decide that because one program in your suit of thousands of programs was free that means everything in your software package has become free. This is the choice BSD gives you, it allows you to use some open and some closed software and sell it all together.
I don't know which one is better, the BSD or GPL. But I will say this, it doesn't matter at all to me. What matters to me is working software at a price I am willing to pay and whatever gives that to me wins.
Stephen Samuel wrote the following bullshit:
The only place that Microsoft has to include your copyright and the BSD license is in the source code, and nobody outside of Microsoft (and people who sign an NDA) are likely to see that source code.
Again, that's ridiculously false.
Microsoft has to include "your copyright and the BSD license" in every *binary* distribution as well. It's clearly written in the BSD license: "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
I asked you to get a clue. Now I must think that you actually enjoy making an ass of yourself.
--
Requiem for the FUD
TenDRA is a C compiler. It can do C++ code but lacks C++ libraries.
http://www.tendra.org/
The GPL is like running a charity except when the poor come to get some food they have to sign a contract that says "In exchange for this food you promise to give all your food back to this food kitchen for the rest of your life".
Give me a break. Virtuous is giving it away with no restrictions and letting each individual choose for themselves whether or not to be equally generous and also who they want to do it.
this is NOT the GPL.
What is freedom for you? Is more freedom always good? Cerainly not: people should not be "free" to hurt other people right?
m l
Maybe true legitimate freedom is freedom that doesn't affect others. There is a better word to descibe freedom that affects other people: power.
The GPL gives you absolutely all the (personal) freedom you have with BSD licenses: zero restriction on use, you can do absolutely what you want with the program on your computer. However when it comes to other people the GPL does restrics you: contrary to BSD licenses it doesn't grant you power on other people (ie. no freedom to affect, diminish other people's freedom)
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.ht
So the "BSD more free than GPL" debate all comes to whether you consider power as a legitimate freedom...
"the statements were all fair."
No they weren't. You totally mischaracterised the GPL as an anti-commercial license, and said something about control-freakery into the bargain.
"I'm not arguing that anyone should do anything."
You did EXACTLY THAT! You told us that if we wanted our software to be free we should public domain it! You tried to bully GPL-developers by calling the license cowardly!
"If, however, their goal is to give away their work as a gift to the greater community, "
The proprietary software world doesn't need charity, it needs to be starved to death. Hope this helps.
"If, however, GIMP were released into the public domain, it would in short order raise the quality of every image editing program on the planet"
If GIMP was public domain, there's a good chance that it would be a shitty freeware utility with no developer base like all the other shitty freeware utilities out there, and would have contributed next to nothing to the community. Or do you mean they should develop their software under the GPL for a while until it turns out good, THEN public domain it? Perhaps you should ask the same of Adobe.
Free software works by getting a bunch of people with a huge bunch of different motives to work on one project. Some do it for the technical challenge. Some do it for the money. Some do it for the kudos. Some might even do it out of this charity motive you're talking about, (presumably because they saw the telethon on TV last night with pictures of Larry Ellison and Bill Gates and Steve Jobs all looking hungry with the words 'give generously' scrolling across the bottom of the screen). It doesn't really matter WHY they write the code, they just do.
The GPL does seem to be a bit better at the job of getting people with different motives to work on the same project than the public domain. Public domain software has been around as long as software has, the GPL has been around for only 20 years. That's a 40 year head start. Why hasn't a public domain GIMP showed up already?
All payware eventually gravitates towards DRM.
Nope. Counter example here. Just because your imagination is as limited as the monopolies you speak out against, don't assume that everyone is so hindered.
Did any of them in the spirit of their license "give back"?
Absolutely, for example the two main desktops for FreeBSD are Gnome and KDE which both came from the Linux/GPL movement.
Every time there's a story about one of the *AAs trying to use the legal system to protect their business interests, there are many, many posts here decrying it. "They should move with the times!" they cry, "and not try to prop up an outmoded, dying business model! Adapt or die!"
Every time there's a story about outsourcing of jobs, there are many, many posts decrying the practrice. "American programmers can't possibly compete, the cost of living is so muc higher here!" they cry, "this is short-sighted and damages the economy in the long run for quick profits now!"
Where are the "adapt or die" posts then? True, there are one or two, but they are very much drowned out - as are the few "but copyright is a good system, when not abused" and "they deserve to be paid for their work" posts on the *AA stories.
And some of us (who actually understand capitalism better than the so-called "intellectual property" advocates) believe that if we want someone to pay us money, then we should actually have to WORK for it - by providing the service of programming in return for compensation.
But if it takes me a year to create a piece of software, then (if I can only be paid for it once) I need to find somone willing to spend a year's salary on it. That is, large projects that take a number of people a long time to create need very wealthy sponsors/commissioners to invest a lot of money. It's unlikely that such people/groups will be willing to just give the resultant code away without some way of recouping their investment.
Only greedy people think they should get paid every time their work is copied, and not just the first time they sell it to someone.
There are two ways to recoup the cost of a lengthy project that requires a lot of effort. Either sell it for a lot of money once, or sell it for a little money a lot of times. Of the two, generally, the latter is far easier to achieve, especially for projects (such as feature films) that cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to produce.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
GPL say,"We do not have money to support lawyers. Take this but be fair about it. If you are not fair about it we will have an easy case finding a lawyer to beat you down."
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Are GNOME and KDE licensed under the BSD license for BSD use? No? Then how is this "giving back"? If you're not licensing your code so that BSD can make use of it under their license, you're not truly "giving back".
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
To be a bit helful the proper term we should be discussing is "Fascism" but not in reference to the GPL but in reference to the "Bill and Steve Show" at Microsoft.
To be quite precise these people built an empire largely out of government control of the property of others and developments of others. Then they built their business using Tax Exempt Bonds and Industrial Development Authorities. This is quite precisely a case of a business built out of State Investments. In the strictest of definitions this is "Fascism."
Now to be really fair wouldn't you love to be able to build a business where other people's work made you money and you didn't have to pay them and you could even tax them for building your property plant and equipment? Wouldn't you just love it where the US Army would define that no other bidders need apply for contracts to supply similar services? Wouldn't you love it if you could get all of this and then have the money all to yourself not even until recently having to pay the suckers (Investors) who supplied additional capital to your company? I could go into this a bit deeper but it is clearly and plainly fascism.
Don't you love the defenders of the Steve and Bill Show who argue about "Free Enterprise" and "Free Markets" and stuff like that. They talk a nice story but that is all it is, a story. It bears no relationship to any facts. This not troll it is just the facts so mods if you disagree get a life!
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
"most software companies make money by selling software."
Software which comes with dire threats attached if you make a copy for a friend.
"no major company makes a majority of its money from lawsuits"
And no dictator subjects the majority of his citizens to violence. He doesn't need to. The threat is already there, it's implicit and well-understood by everybody.
"you can't under any lisence take someone elses work, stick a EULA on it and sue someone for infringement on your copyright"
Technically yes. But any minor modification to a BSD-licensed program and the copyright on the mods are effectively yours. If I'm the first person to compile FreeBSD with a non-standard compiler, then I probably have copyright on the binaries, and I can slap on that fascist EULA. Even if that's not the case, I can still tweak a couple of lines of code for the same effect.
Of course, if that's what the author of the BSD-code wants, then that's fine. I have no problems with those nice BSD people offering their code under those sorts of conditions. However, I do resent being told by a third party that I'm a coward for not letting every proprietary hoarder use my code to enslave and threaten people.
"Software which comes with dire threats attached if you make a copy for a friend."
the copy is illegal, is that really so hard to understand?? If Linus torvald woke up tomorrow, assuming he still holds hte copyright for his work on linux, he could close off all of his mods to linux. It doesn't come with dire threats attatched, it comes with the protection of current law. If people don't like the lisense, no one forces them to by the product, not even windows.
Thats the beauty of the market. If you really wanted to improve the code in use, you would release under BSD so any author, no matter his personal feelings, can use your insight. If you don't want to improve all the code base, but only other open source, go with the GPL.
anyways, not a single proprietary hoarder has ever enslaved someone(as software goes). Hate you break it to you, but the information and alternatives have always been there. If people willingly choose to not get informed, whether its BSD, GPL, or that EULA you hate so much, its all the same. Those people aren't slaves, they are willingly bending over and taking it.
But I take it from your outlook you want even copyright protection completely removed? I also assume then you want patents done away with? I argue copyright forces people to be even more creative. Not only allowing them to come up with something new but by reinventing something already there, possibly making it much better. Even patents do this by forcing people to not walk the same trodden path because its already been trail blazed. Sounds like a pretty effective way of forcing everyone who wants in now to be creative. Of course, as a non programmer, I like the free software movement because it gives me things for free that i value at a much higher price. Consumer surplus has pretty much been maximized so I'm happy.
"the copy is illegal, is that really so hard to understand??"
I understand fine. I also understand that the law is a vehicle for the protection of wealth inequality through the use and threat of violence, and I also understand that software would still be made even without exclusionary property rights, so it's not even a necessary evil.
"If people don't like the lisense, no one forces them to by the product, not even windows."
The 'choice' you refer to is that, at least until recently, you didn't have to use proprietary software. You always had the choice of not using a computer at all and being crippled, economically.
It's a similar, though less harsh, choice to the 'work 14 hours in my sweatshop for a pittance or sift through other people's garbage for tin cans' that third world people often have to make.
"Hate you break it to you, but the information and alternatives have always been there."
The alternatives only came into being in 1991 or so.
"Those people aren't slaves, they are willingly bending over and taking it."
Well some people need to work using proprietary software and need to install said software at home. "Use proprietary software or lose your job" is not a choice, it's a threat.
"I argue copyright forces people to be even more creative. Not only allowing them to come up with something new but by reinventing something already there, possibly making it much better."
So that explains all the creative people I see reinventing proprietary PC operating systems and coming up with proprietary spreadsheets to compete with Excel, does it? You're trying to paint a monopolist's barriers to competition as though it was a stimulus to creativity.
Creative people have a choice too. When you raise barriers to competition too far, they have a choice of not competing. Competing with Microsoft in most areas is utterly unthinkable for a proprietary company these days - there are simply far too many wheels to reinvent.
Besides, you miss the point. Creativity isn't scarce. People come up with ideas all the time. It's one of the things that people just do. I'm not about to support the use of state violence to combat the global ideas shortage we aren't having.
The problem for a proprietary software producer isn't lack of ideas, it's getting enough suitably skilled manpower to turn those ideas into working code that matters.
For free software, the problem is just making sure there aren't any artificial barriers for those that do want to put those ideas into practice. And that means stopping IBM and Microsoft from buying up all the ideas.
the law is a vehicle for whatever you want it to be. Yes people use it to both get rich and stay rich, and I say why not? having all that money is like most things in this world, you will probably hate those with it until you join their ranks.
You have never had to use proprietary software as you said and that doesn't make you economically crippled, not in the slightest. If you can find some other way to be just as efficient your fine, but on the other hand, if the software is the best option to maximize your profitability you go with it.
the alternatives did not come into being in 1991, unless you mean "no one gave away a free, usable operating system until 1991" which I still would believe is incorrect. And there have been loads of proprietary software options well before that. That Mac OS/2 so many people hail as being better htan microsoft was out there as well(I actually have no idea, never used either program from that era).
the job issue is one you walk into. If you are willing, go start your own business where you don't use proprietary software or better yet, you could leave the industries where such a thing is forced on you. oh , wait, you don't want the risk that comes with the freedom do you? Its understandable, most people done.
even with copyright and all that bad stuff you hate so much, you argument is still moot. You want people making competing products with excel, I point you to open office. guess what, it was reinvented in a different and very new way. Not only that, I feel there reinvention is much superior. Then if you really want to replace excel, you could just go with the better programs like SAS or Intercooled Stata. both are proprietary and I use them instead of excel any day of the week. of course, they could have just copied the MS office code if they wanted and began from there and Linus could have just started with the DOS code and developed from there. It is of course the path that you want open for everyone to take.
Anyways, Microsoft has a competitor in every single one of its divisions. and usually, its a pretty major one. They seem to be reinventing those wheels just fine. Better yet, I see people choosing those alternatives more and more often.
If the only problem free software makers faced was the possibility of all the ideas being bought up by MS, etc, then you have completely invalidated the idea that "creativity isn't scarce". you can only buy it all up when it is scarce.
try not to contradict or ignore obvious flaws. If all your saying is you would rather see all the source code adn have a world where people program together in harmony and those that don't program feed you somehow, I suggest a socialist state. They are nice, none of that wealth inequality or the law holding the little person down.
just wondering, do you support any kind of patent or copyright, or are you just against them in softwares case?
just to answer for me, I feel copyrights are out of control but in general a very good idea. I think we should really enforce copyright by requiring all code to be open, no one can hide anything they don't have the rights to. patents are a great thing but only if you require a working model, I don't like this teachable diagram
BS.
Actually, there are major parts of KDE that are under the BSD license (kwin, kicker, etc). But that's because KDE is not a GNU project. On the other hand, GNOME is a GNU project, and you won't find any BSD licensed code there. GNU has never once contributed any code to BSD under the BSD license, or to X under the MIT license.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Not only is GNOME a GNU project, but it was explicitly a GNU political project, started because they didn't like KDE's license.
Of course they're not going to give back to BSD. They don't agree with their politics.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Saying the two most popular desktops on the FreeBSD platform aren't licensed for BSD use is fairly self contradictory.
No, it's not. BSD use is more than just using it on the BSD platform. It also means being used under the same terms as the rest of BSD - including use by commercial entities for profit. The BSD system itself is licensed for such use. Neither GNOME nor KDE is. Since they're not, they're not truly given back to the BSD community.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
And win!
I'm not sure why one side should be able to function so differently from the other. "Hey you can't license your product or stuff so we can't use it but we can"
Besides those 200 lines form part of many millions of lines that are available for your use. You just happen to only want to use those few, but you are welcome to the other millions too. But in order to use them you just have to play fair, meaning on equal terms of share and share alike.
Well then under your definition BSD has given nothing to the GPL community since it hasn't released its software GPL -- that is software which helps to build a free software community outside of and as an alternative to the commerecial community. That argument cuts both ways
No, it doesn't. There's plenty of code in Linux that was lifted directly from BSD, with their blessing. The reverse has not happened.
The difference is that BSD-licensed code is usable directly by GPLed code, with no relicensing or permission required. The reverse is not true. Thus, the BSD camp has contributed to Linux, but the Linux camp hasn't contributed to BSD.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Next thing you'll say GNU's not Unix.
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
"e law is a vehicle for whatever you want it to be. Yes people use it to both get rich and stay rich, and I say why not? having all that money is like most things in this world, you will probably hate those with it until you join their ranks."
Why not? Because I thought the name of the game was to live in a democracy where everybody made the rules, not a plutocracy where we're pwned by those with money. If it's okay for the rich to make the rules, why was it not okay for, say, Stalin's communist party or Hitler's Nazi party to make the rules? You'd really hate those guys too until you join their ranks.
"You have never had to use proprietary software as you said and that doesn't make you economically crippled, not in the slightest."
I don't have to use roads either. By your foolish logic, that "wouldn't economically cripple me either". I just find another way to transport goods and people from A to B that's more efficient. You think of software as a luxury product. It's not. In this day and age, it's an essential piece of economic infrastructure.
"no one gave away a free, usable operating system until 1991" which I still would believe is incorrect"
Unless you want to nitpick as regards the freeness of pre-1991 BSDs, and for most people outside elite circles in academia or whatever, BSD wasn't an option anyway until 1990 or 1991 or so.
"they could have just copied the MS office code if they wanted and began from there and Linus could have just started with the DOS code and developed from there"
No they couldn't. That code was both secret and illegal to use.
"If the only problem free software makers faced was the possibility of all the ideas being bought up by MS, etc, then you have completely invalidated the idea that "creativity isn't scarce". you can only buy it all up when it is scarce."
Hehe, well spotted.
You can't buy up all ideas per se. You CAN buy up all the useful ways of doing a particular thing though. It wouldn't be hard to patent all the *useful* knots for seamanship purposes, or all the worthwhile carpentry joints and set yourself up in a monopoly, if you were allowed to.
"Anyways, Microsoft has a competitor in every single one of its divisions. and usually, its a pretty major one."
Some of those markets are ones which Microsoft has just entered, such as the Xbox. I'll ignore those.
For the others, the alternatives are usually non-proprietary ones which don't force the reinvention of wheels. In operating systems for low-end desktops we have, what, Linux and OSX. Linux works because it simulates a copyright-less, trade secret-less world using the GPL. It wouldn't have ever existed using the normal mehods of copyright protection. OSX didn't reinvent many wheels, it just cribbed hugely from FreeBSD (BSD itself wasn't able to come into being in the marketplace to begin with, it was an academic project built on top of Unix code). Linux itself cribbed a bunch of BSD and ancient Unix code too.
"I suggest a socialist state. They are nice, none of that wealth inequality or the law holding the little person down."
You ARE joking, right? Socialist states are mostly nasty (at least the ones that the US lets exist for more than a couple of years without launching terror attacks of one flavour or another). I'm more of a non-statist socialist type person.
"just wondering, do you support any kind of patent or copyright, or are you just against them in softwares case?"
I'm totally opposed to software patents. Real patents I'm mostly agnostic about, since I don't pay that much attention to physical inventions.
Copyrights I don't really care too much about either way - the free copyright licenses are doing a good job of competing with the unfree ones, so abolishing copyrights, while it might be nice, isn't totally necessary. That's no reason not to denigrate unfree software whenever possible though.
The major worry with copyrights is the practical measures needed to enforce copyright in the digital age which are turning into dangerous impingents on everyone's freedom.
For the original poster, it sounded like his company could have handled the Artistic license (or the Perl version of it) much better than the GPL.
I have worked for three companies since I have left college. Two of them were small and one large. All of them have given source to non-GPL code projects. They even have allowed me to provide code outside of work as long as it did not conflict with the non-compete clause.
Alfonso,
I'm sorry you used a license you didn't understand, and I find the flames you endured unfortunate.
But, had you used a different license you didn't understand, analogous results (i.e. unintended consiquences you object to and have given up the right to prevent would have occurred).
I'm going to bold this because it is important.
Releasing your hard work under any license you don't understand is "dangerous" in the sense that you will probably experience consiquences you didn't intend and may not like. THIS IS TRUE OF ANY LICENSE. You MUST understand the license you release your work under if you wish to avoid disappointments like this.
I am not familiar with the Amiga OS architecture, or how linking from libraries works on that platform. I would suggest you ask the folks at the FSF for clarification on how the GPL applies in your case. Depending on how "tightly" the code in your GPLed libraries link to a 3rd party app, the GPL may or may not apply to that third party app. This is one area of the GPL I am personally a little fuzzy on, so I would encourage you to get a clear answer from an authoritative source, such as the Free Software Foundation (fsf.org).
Generally, the GPL requires derivative products to also be GPLed. The question is, is the commercial version of this app using your code within its binary or is it only "loosely" linked to an external library (if your code is in the compiled binary, then they MUST provide access to source upon request, and the CANNOT restrict your rights to modify said source, use it in your projects, or share it with others so long as it remains under the GPL). This means, if the commercial version has your code in the binary, you can request the sources, modify them to not require a key, and distribute the modified version under the GPL for all to see and use. But, if it is only loosely linked to a library you wrote, we are back in the fuzzy area where this may not apply, and you'll need a more expert opinion than mine on the subject.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy