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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
An interesting point. My (somewhat similar) philosophy regarding the BSD license is thus: if I write some code, maybe a networking protocol stack or something, and it sucks, no one will use it. If it's good, then people will want to use it. If it's good and it's BSD-style licensed, then corporations can use it freely, but if it's good and it's GPL'ed, then corporations can only use it if they open-source their project too.
So if I build a better networking stack than anyone else and GPL it, then only people using open-source can benefit - but only some of them! Even though Sun's new license, Apple's license, and the BSDs' licenses are all open-source licenses, they can't use my code. So it's not a win for open-source, it's only a win for GPL'ed open source. The GPL is, in this situation, self-serving, as it only helps itself.
If I build a better networking stack and BSD-style license it, then literally anyone can use it. If Linux wants to use it to make their networking better, than they can. If Apple wants to, or FreeBSD, or ReactOS or some other hobbyist whom no one has even heard of yet, they all can, and they can make better software because of it. Also, if a big company wants to use it in their software, like Windows, or HP-UX, or whatever, they can do that too. Some people say this is bad, but why? People use Windows, that's a fact, so if I can make Windows better, then isn't that a good thing? You don't need a reason to help people.
The GPL doesn't grant freedom to the users, it grants control to the author. They say that their code can only be used to help GPL'ed projects, they restrict you from using it in certain ways, and even restrict other open-source programmers from using it. That is too bad. The BSD license grants freedom to everyone, so if they want to make a closed-source OS or a proprietary router or a networkable baby-mulching machine, then they are free to do so, whatever I might think of it. Not that I support baby-mulching, but that is freedom, like it or not.
The LGPL is better in a lot of ways, in that they only really have to give source for their modifications to the code that you gave them, and I can agree with that. The problem is that the FSF bigwigs like Stallman see the LGPL as a necessary evil, and not an important compromise (balancing their need for control with the end users' need for freedom). It's not acceptable, it's just necessary.
Oh well. I prefer the BSD license because it gives freedom to users, and not control to programmers.
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.
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
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.
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.
From a quick view of the products offered at www.infinadyne.com, it doesn't look like you have much competition from open source software.
There is still a large market for custom software, so independent programmers can make a good living coding one-off apps for their clients, and there is still a large market for niche products that Microsoft isn't going to fill, and Infinadyne can capitalize on that market quite nicely.
I don't really see how open source is a problem for you at all, even if viewed from a very selfish viewpoint instead of the appropriate perspective of what is best for the overall market. Is open source software taking any bread off your table? Can you offer a specific example, or are you just not happy with the concept that some programmers will write quality software and give it to people?
I did some programming in the distant past. In fact, ironic considering your example, I developed a large real estate program under contract. I was paid an hourly wage. The software never quite saw the commercial light of day. I don't program much any more, mostly because Windows came along and turned me into "just another Windoze luser". But I've been exclusively running Linux the last two years, and running my small electrical engineering business very effectively without Windows. I'd like to do some programming again, and I'd be very inclined to give back to the OSS community by contributing some code.
As an end user, I love open source software. Philosophically, I love the idea that the source code is available if I ever want to add features, even though I admit that's rarely done. But on a more practical side, open source software seems a lot better to me in almost every way.
When I want a piece of software, my package manager allows me to search for keywords and quickly locate interesting programs. I read a paragraph description of each. For common applications, there will be many choices and I'll click the best looking three of them and click install. With a cable modem, they usually download and install in a minute or two. No hassles with copy protection schemes, complex EULAs (that nobody reads), or lengthy registration processes. I run the software, evaluate it in a few minutes each, and remove the software I don't want.
Installation and removal are quick and easy. The package manager never asks me anything like the Windows question, "This application uses URscrewd.DLL, which may be shared by other applications. Remove?" How the hell should I know? Shouldn't the Windows uninstaller know that sort of thing? The Debian package manager does a perfect job at managing library dependencies. And of course, there is no registry to be corrupted, so I never suffer from Registry Rot or DLL Hell.
Now, for the biggy. I have been very shocked by the excellent support I receive when using open source software. Logically, I'd assume someone charging a lot of money for a $5 manual and a $1 CD in a shrink wrapped box could offer much better support than what is available with free (as in "free beer") software. But that has not been my experience. I haven't needed any more support on OSS software than I have with the expensive shrink wrapped closed source software, but when I did, the support was actually much better! Much of the support came from a community of users, often on an online forum, but sometimes the program's author provided expert support and seemed genuinely happy to do it.
Clearly, not everyone is motivated purely by money. I'm not sure why that frightens you or angers you, but it seems like a good thing to me. It isn't communism. It's actually quite nice. I hope you can enjoy it some day.
Using open source software just FEELS right, and it isn't because it's free. It's a cop-out to say this, but I don't think people will fully appreciate it until they've tried it.
Imagine, software that doesn't assume you're going to steal it if it doesn't write hidden files all over your hard drive and hassle you with registration keys. Imagine software with the primary goal of meeting the user's needs instead of generating recurring revenue through proprietary data formats and similar customer unfriendly tactics.
In what way does GPL code "devalue everything you do"?
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.