Your arguments in favor of the USPS are sound and logical. However, you fail to mention why, if they are making a profit and are efficient, they need to be a government agency and mandated monopoly?
"As one coming from Europe, this country is strange"
When I was in Europe, I found strange stuff there as well. That does not make my way correct anymore than you perplexity makes your way right.
"How long it will take until the map will be something private?"
Most maps already are. Look in the bottom corner and you'll see a copyright. However, before you scream in frustration, understand that no one, no one at all, has a copyright on any actual geography, only on their little tiny representation of it. But don't complain about rude Americans copyrighting maps. I see that my German Langenscheidt dictionary is copyrighted.
"I just saw a couple of weeks ago a big sign in the continuation of a big street saying that from that point on, the traffic is no longer public."
I don't recall private streets in Europe, so they may be very rare there. But in the US, especially in rural areas, they are not uncommon. I don't understand what your problem is with them though. One road I know of in particular was built at private expense (along with the sewers, power and phone lines) to reach a rural area that served only five houses. They built it, it's theirs.
"ZIP codes are not the property of USPS... It's just a mean to slice the country in easy pieces."
It was the USPS that came up with ZIP codes, and they are the only ones with the authority to issue them. ZIP codes are only used by the USPS. Believe it or not, UPS will still deliver your packages without them.
But understand that I do not agree with the USPS charging for it's database. As far as I am concerned, their mail monopoly should be revoked and they should compete with UPS, FedEx, et al, for the delivery of first class and bulk mail. I don't consider mail delivery to be any more important than food, but the government doesn't have a monopoly on grocery stores.
"But I cannot stop thinking that one day some wise guy will buy from the government all the rights to the name of my street and I will have to pay him royalties for using it on my mails."
That's just normal paranoia. Everyone gets it from time to time. Instead of worrying about someone buying those rights, consider why the government even holds those rights to begin with.
"It's just crazy."
You mean crazy that the world doesn't operate according to your personal philosophy? That's life...
Every BSDer that I've met or conversed with has regarded Windows as the something spontaneously produced by a violently ill camel ever so lightly garnished with lark's vomit.
If a government wishes to use Free Software for itself, then go for it. But they have no business whatsoever mandating non-governmental groups to do the same.
If the only way Free Software can get marketshare is for governments to require its use, then it's not really free anymore. What happened to the free choice in Free Software? Or are we sacrificing our principles for the "greater good".
Let's see, Miguel de Icaza is the head of Gnome. Gnome is part of the GNU Project. GNU is the FSF. Thus, the Free Software Foundation has awarded itself the prize for the Free Software Foundation Award!
Next on Geraldo, Linus Torvalds awards Alan Cox, Bob Young awards Matt Ewing, and Larry Augustin awards Eric Raymond. Bitter at not winning Larry's prestigious plaque, Rasterman creates his own award and presents it to Mandrake.
The GPL shouldn't be there to annihilate a particular business model. But it makes an excellent license for those people who don't want to be part of that model.
"Umm, so I can then write proprieraty software making use of Qt then? Since there is no restrictions on copying and distributing Qt itself just on developing proprieraty software with it."
If you buy the proprietary license then yes. Otherwise you have to follow the Open Source version's rules just as you have to do with the GPL. There is one big difference though. Troll Tech does not claim that the QPL is the freest of the free, or the most moral of all. Troll Tech says instead, "here is our license, we like it, but if you don't, then that's okay." But what the FSF says is, "here is our license, it is the best license, all other licenses are bad for you, if you don't use it you condemn your users to slavery."
"If the "very purpose" of a library is to be used then wouldn't the same logic apply to applications?"
Absolutely! If the application is already installed on my system, then I have every right to use it. But redistribution and source code modification are not the purposes of applications, so if I want to do those things I had better check with the license first.
But this begs the point. The GPL explicitely says that it does not restrict the use of the software. By linking to readline, I am using readline in the manner it was intended, so the usage clause of the GPL should apply.
"That would mean the "traditional" way of making money from software (which you and tchrist defend) is void too."
Thank you very much for comparing me with Tom Christiansen. I consider it a great honor. Gosh, I'm blushing!
"The whole copyright system is dead. Hallelujah."
Uh, hate to break the news to you, but the GPL is based on a copyright. But I also wonder if you give novel writers, composers, newspaper editors, sculptors, painters and poets just as much grief for their impositions of slavery upon mankind as much as you do developers.
"So if I release software using the GPL I expect and demand you to use it within the restrictions I set up - library or not."
Which is why I don't modify GPL programs. Even GPL libraries. Neither will I link to your GPL libraries at runtime despite the fact that you have given me permission to do so by licensing it under the GPL. I just don't understand why if you don't want me to link to your library, you released it under a license that says I can.
"I would be pretty pissed (mostly out of jealousy and greed) but damnit I would have every right to be, they used my work to make their money and I am not getting any cut of it. First of all, that would be shitty of someone to do that, but you gotta realize that people are evil, so someone would."
I'm glad you used the terms jealousy and greed. Nothing to be too ashamed off, because none of us are perfect. I might even feel the same way if it happened to me.
However, there is nothing wrong with earning a living. The usual course of doing so involves trading what you have for what you want. It is perfectly natural for a developer to use his development skills to earn a living with. He creates a cool game program and trades it to gamers for money.
Now why did he use your 3D toolkit instead of forking over hundreds or thousands of dollars for a proprietary one? Easy. You already said your toolkit was free, free and in free beer and free as in free to use. Nowhere in your license did you say "you can only use this if you write free programs." If that was your intent, then make your toolkit under the GPL. But by putting it out under the LGPL you are explicitly giving the game manufacturer permission to make money off of it.
Instead of getting jealous of the game designer, you might think instead of how cool your toolkit really is. After all, with only a "very thin" client program gamers from all over paid good money for it. Maybe you should consider writing your own game with it and selling it. After all, who better than the toolkit creator to write the perfect game for it.
"But criticizing it because it is a *copyright* is just plain stupid."
I'm criticizing the GPL for being a copyright ONLY because the FSF criticizes copyrights. After all, if anti-copyright opinions are good enough for Richard, then they're good enough for me.
"If you're linking to libraries and making use of the functions therein, the software isn't entirely your own work."
I have never seen the source code for Readline. I have no desire to see the source code. I have not, nor will ever, modify any of it's code. The source code isn't even installed. Yet you say a single function call in the software that I wrote solely by my own effort suddenly belongs to Richard Stallman?!? You're mad!
The very purpose a library is to be used. It's the essence and meaning of it's existance. Ask a library writer why they wrote it and they'll tell you it's because they want it to be used. Now...
So why is the GPL restricting, even forbidding, the normal and intended purpose of Readline? I though the GPL said it didn't restrict usage?
"It is these types of situation that the GPL is designed for. It doesn't rip off the coders, it PROTECTS THEM!!!!!"
If you think that dynamically linking to a library is akin to ripping you off, then it's time for you to wake up and join the real world. So sue me and watch me laugh as the judge's chin hits the floor when you tell him grievance.
"BSD licenses allow code that you write to come under the control of other people, and you can't stop them."
It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction of GPL advocates to whine "it's not viral!" Perhaps it's time for BSD advocates to get their own whine, "nobody stole it, it's still right here!"
I don't know the exact details of the kerberos, but from your link I can make two educated guesses. One) Microsoft did not walk into MIT, pull out a pistol, and forcibly remove Kerberos from the premises. Two) The standard version of Kerberos still exists and Microsoft is in no way preventing anyone from freely accessing using it.
But I think you're unclear on the whole BSD concept of Free Software. Kerberos was freely shared with everyone, Bill Gates included. They didn't believe it was right to exclude certain classes of people from using Kerberos. Microsofts version of Kerberos is not the only version out there. Far from it. The BSD license is not a moral policeman that carefully scrutinizes each and every instance of the code to ensure that it is forever adherent to the wishes of the original developer.
Unlike GPL advocates, BSD advocates are not morally offended by the mere existance of proprietary software.
"As far as problems with the Artistic License, take a look at the OSD as commented by Bruce Perens for some gripes."
Bruce Perens is a legalist who wants precise definitions clearly laid out. But the Artistic License comes from the Perl world, where the motto is "there's more than one way to do everything".
But you're forgetting that everyone abandoned Perl! Who cares? If you care, then why did you abandon Perl?
But to allay your fears, if MegaPerl becomes a cumbersome entity to deal with, then the sources for Perl are still out there on an archive somewhere. But even if they're not, someone wrote an Open Source scripting language once, so the proof is there that someone can do it again.
Stop feeling threatened by the MegaPerls in the world. No one is making you use them. Relax. Your blood pressure will improve and you'll live longer.
Oh please!!! What slave-state are you talking about? Please get a dictionary and look up the words you are using. A slave has to obey the dictates of his master. A slave cannot freely walk away from his plantation, chains and master.
However, if I am a user of proprietary software, I have every real and existing right to ignore the demands of the software owners. I can freely uninstall the software any time their blathering becomes and annoyance.
"If you still want to play the IP game, that's fine, but the GPL is not going to be there to help you!"
Then the GPL shouldn't be in the IP game either. It is the utmost of hypocrisy to decry the evilness of copyrights and then to turn around and enforce the wishes of the GPL with a copyright. This is a much different thing that "fighting fire with fire" because as any fireman will tell you, fire is not evil. Does Richard Stallman think he is so holy that he is above the laws he demands of Bill Gates?
No. Redhat is making money distributing GPL'd code.
"Alan Cox is getting paid to write GPL'd code."
Redhat is paying Alan to improve and maintain some of the code that they are distributing. If Alan wrote exactly the same code on his free time at home, Redhat would not buy it.
There is not one piece of Open Source software in the world that I am not able to obtain for free. I doesn't matter that the FSF charges thousands of dollars for the official GNU tools since I can get every one of them for for no cost at all.
"Nobody is forcing you to use GPL'd code. If you find yourself wanting to do so, you must either open your own code (GPL it)..."
Take a good look at the above sentence. The GPL says that it makes no restrictions whatsoever upon the use of the software. Yet here you are saying that Tom must GPL his software in order to *use* yours. No, I'm not playing tricky semantics. If dynamic linking is not the normal *use* and *purpose* of a GPL'd shared library, then please tell me what is?
"You claim that the GPL advocates are "passing moral judgement" "
What else do you people who require you distribute philosophical tracts along with their software?
"do not prevent anyone from doing the same" is a far, far cry from "do not prevent anyone from doing the same with any derivations, modifications, translations, or alterations"
That cheap knock-off has been around for about ten years. But I double checked on the patents. The Amway patent was "cyclonic action", using a single centrifugal vortex. The Dyson patent is a "dual vortex" which uses two vortexes in the same space.
If perl dies tomorrow and all that is left is MegaPerl, then perl itself wasn't worth that much to begin with.
If nobody is using an Open Source program, then who's left to complain about it anyway? Perl was released so that everyone could use the code. But if no one is using it anymore, what's the point of keeping it around?
People keep telling me that the GPL is not a religion. Then along comes an anonymous coward deeply and profoundly offended to his core being because someone disagreed disgreed with it. And because his religious faith has no foundation in reality, he can't even issue a well formed rebuttal. Instead he resorts to spewing filthy imagery.
The GPL is very very different from "You may use, modify, distribute, and sell this program in any way you wish, provided you do not restrict others from doing the same" in one very important aspect.
The GPL attempts to assert control over the software you, and you alone, have written. It is one thing to require modifications to be under the same license, but quite another to require an independent module written wholly by someone else to adhere to it.
The above clause does not prevent you from using the software in any way with another license. The only thing it restricts you on is the original code. The GPL, on the other hand, severly restricts what libraries may be linked to in, what applications it may be linked to, what source code files may reside in the same package with it, etc.
I used to release my works under the AL, but have switched to the BSD. But I still have a warm spot in my heart for the AL nonetheless.
In order to understand the Artistic License, you first have to understand where it comes from. The AL first arrived on the scene with Perl. Perl, as you are aware, is a multi-disciplinary language. The hallmarks of Perl hackers are hubris, laziness and impatience. There is more than one way to do anything is the Perl motto. The Artistic License reflects all of these things, as well as the linguistic legerdemain of Larry Wall's humour.
Perl was release under a dual GPL/Artistic license. Larry wanted the hacker community to embrace Perl, but understand that there was a large contingent of "GPL or Go To Hell" reactionaries within it. He also wanted it to be used by the suits, but also understood that many in the corporate world are frightened of the viral nature of copyleft. By releasing Perl under a dual license, the user could choose whatever license they wanted and no one would ever know. You could be secretly using Artistic Perl while everyone else around you thought you were using the party line GPL. Or vice versa. Talk about subversion!
Bruce Perens perenially states his dislike for the AL because he thinks it is a "sloppy" license. Bruce Perens should take some classes in linguistics. "Artistic License" has a meaning beyond the mere name of a software license.
The main gist of the Artistic License is that you can do anything you want with the software, but you must let the user know you're doing it. Thus, you can take AL's software proprietary, but the user can't be hoodwinked into thinking he's running the real stuff, and you have to let the user know where to get the real stuff if he wants it.
If none of the above makes any sense, then just visualize the Artistic License on the middle of an imaginary line stretched between the BSD and GPL licenses.
Are you sure he's the inventor? It's been in use in the United States for a decade now. Up until a couple of years ago, Amway Corp had the US patent rights, and it was only available on the their vacumns. When the patent ran out, Eureka, Hoover, Red Devil, et al, came out with their own "new, revolutionary" versions. In fact, Dyson's DS05 looks almost identical to the old Amway CMS2000.
Of course, even if Mr. Dyson didn't invent this, he may have patented refinements to it. Or he may be the person Amway originally got their rights from.
p.s. No, I am not an Amway distributor. I won't be hitting you up to attend any recruitment meetings:-)
The GPL does not prevent you from selling GPL'd software.
Go ask Cygnus who made their first millions selling GNU's stuff. They made their next millions with their own GPL's software which they sold. Their latest millions came when Redhat bought them with billions gained through selling CD's with substantials amounts of GPL'd software.
Or go ask Larry Wall. He released Perl under a GPL/Artistic combination. O'Reilly came along and made money off of it by selling books and CD's. They made enough money off of Perl that they had the hubris to hire Larry Wall!
"Anyway, an expert knows what he wants, and probably would not be very impressed with "expert" ratings."
You're right on that point. But what about an intelligent newbie. They see a rating for CoolLinux that says 9 (newbie) and 2 (expert). They know that they'll be able get it installed and running quickly, but will find limitations to it as they progress. If their goal is to just try out Linux and see what it's like they may go with it. But if they're planning to take a plunge and stick with it awhile, they may want to go with something that has a higher expert rating. Or they may be unfamiliar with Linux, but have good experience in BSD, Solaris or another Unix.
Slashdot Mirror
Your arguments in favor of the USPS are sound and logical. However, you fail to mention why, if they are making a profit and are efficient, they need to be a government agency and mandated monopoly?
"As one coming from Europe, this country is strange"
When I was in Europe, I found strange stuff there as well. That does not make my way correct anymore than you perplexity makes your way right.
"How long it will take until the map will be something private?"
Most maps already are. Look in the bottom corner and you'll see a copyright. However, before you scream in frustration, understand that no one, no one at all, has a copyright on any actual geography, only on their little tiny representation of it. But don't complain about rude Americans copyrighting maps. I see that my German Langenscheidt dictionary is copyrighted.
"I just saw a couple of weeks ago a big sign in the continuation of a big street saying that from that point on, the traffic is no longer public."
I don't recall private streets in Europe, so they may be very rare there. But in the US, especially in rural areas, they are not uncommon. I don't understand what your problem is with them though. One road I know of in particular was built at private expense (along with the sewers, power and phone lines) to reach a rural area that served only five houses. They built it, it's theirs.
"ZIP codes are not the property of USPS... It's just a mean to slice the country in easy pieces."
It was the USPS that came up with ZIP codes, and they are the only ones with the authority to issue them. ZIP codes are only used by the USPS. Believe it or not, UPS will still deliver your packages without them.
But understand that I do not agree with the USPS charging for it's database. As far as I am concerned, their mail monopoly should be revoked and they should compete with UPS, FedEx, et al, for the delivery of first class and bulk mail. I don't consider mail delivery to be any more important than food, but the government doesn't have a monopoly on grocery stores.
"But I cannot stop thinking that one day some wise guy will buy from the government all the rights to the name of my street and I will have to pay him royalties for using it on my mails."
That's just normal paranoia. Everyone gets it from time to time. Instead of worrying about someone buying those rights, consider why the government even holds those rights to begin with.
"It's just crazy."
You mean crazy that the world doesn't operate according to your personal philosophy? That's life...
Every BSDer that I've met or conversed with has regarded Windows as the something spontaneously produced by a violently ill camel ever so lightly garnished with lark's vomit.
"public corporation"
This is a different thing than a government run corporatoin. Examples of public corporations include Redhat and VA Linux.
If a government wishes to use Free Software for itself, then go for it. But they have no business whatsoever mandating non-governmental groups to do the same.
If the only way Free Software can get marketshare is for governments to require its use, then it's not really free anymore. What happened to the free choice in Free Software? Or are we sacrificing our principles for the "greater good".
Let's see, Miguel de Icaza is the head of Gnome. Gnome is part of the GNU Project. GNU is the FSF. Thus, the Free Software Foundation has awarded itself the prize for the Free Software Foundation Award!
Next on Geraldo, Linus Torvalds awards Alan Cox, Bob Young awards Matt Ewing, and Larry Augustin awards Eric Raymond. Bitter at not winning Larry's prestigious plaque, Rasterman creates his own award and presents it to Mandrake.
The GPL shouldn't be there to annihilate a particular business model. But it makes an excellent license for those people who don't want to be part of that model.
"Umm, so I can then write proprieraty software making use of Qt then? Since there is no restrictions on copying and distributing Qt itself just on developing proprieraty software with it."
If you buy the proprietary license then yes. Otherwise you have to follow the Open Source version's rules just as you have to do with the GPL. There is one big difference though. Troll Tech does not claim that the QPL is the freest of the free, or the most moral of all. Troll Tech says instead, "here is our license, we like it, but if you don't, then that's okay." But what the FSF says is, "here is our license, it is the best license, all other licenses are bad for you, if you don't use it you condemn your users to slavery."
"If the "very purpose" of a library is to be used then wouldn't the same logic apply to applications?"
Absolutely! If the application is already installed on my system, then I have every right to use it. But redistribution and source code modification are not the purposes of applications, so if I want to do those things I had better check with the license first.
But this begs the point. The GPL explicitely says that it does not restrict the use of the software. By linking to readline, I am using readline in the manner it was intended, so the usage clause of the GPL should apply.
"That would mean the "traditional" way of making money from software (which you and tchrist defend) is void too."
Thank you very much for comparing me with Tom Christiansen. I consider it a great honor. Gosh, I'm blushing!
"The whole copyright system is dead. Hallelujah."
Uh, hate to break the news to you, but the GPL is based on a copyright. But I also wonder if you give novel writers, composers, newspaper editors, sculptors, painters and poets just as much grief for their impositions of slavery upon mankind as much as you do developers.
"So if I release software using the GPL I expect and demand you to use it within the restrictions I set up - library or not."
Which is why I don't modify GPL programs. Even GPL libraries. Neither will I link to your GPL libraries at runtime despite the fact that you have given me permission to do so by licensing it under the GPL. I just don't understand why if you don't want me to link to your library, you released it under a license that says I can.
"I would be pretty pissed (mostly out of jealousy and greed) but damnit I would have every right to be, they used my work to make their money and I am not getting any cut of it. First of all, that would be shitty of someone to do that, but you gotta realize that people are evil, so someone would."
I'm glad you used the terms jealousy and greed. Nothing to be too ashamed off, because none of us are perfect. I might even feel the same way if it happened to me.
However, there is nothing wrong with earning a living. The usual course of doing so involves trading what you have for what you want. It is perfectly natural for a developer to use his development skills to earn a living with. He creates a cool game program and trades it to gamers for money.
Now why did he use your 3D toolkit instead of forking over hundreds or thousands of dollars for a proprietary one? Easy. You already said your toolkit was free, free and in free beer and free as in free to use. Nowhere in your license did you say "you can only use this if you write free programs." If that was your intent, then make your toolkit under the GPL. But by putting it out under the LGPL you are explicitly giving the game manufacturer permission to make money off of it.
Instead of getting jealous of the game designer, you might think instead of how cool your toolkit really is. After all, with only a "very thin" client program gamers from all over paid good money for it. Maybe you should consider writing your own game with it and selling it. After all, who better than the toolkit creator to write the perfect game for it.
"But criticizing it because it is a *copyright* is just plain stupid."
I'm criticizing the GPL for being a copyright ONLY because the FSF criticizes copyrights. After all, if anti-copyright opinions are good enough for Richard, then they're good enough for me.
"If you're linking to libraries and making use of the functions therein, the software isn't entirely your own work."
I have never seen the source code for Readline. I have no desire to see the source code. I have not, nor will ever, modify any of it's code. The source code isn't even installed. Yet you say a single function call in the software that I wrote solely by my own effort suddenly belongs to Richard Stallman?!? You're mad!
The very purpose a library is to be used. It's the essence and meaning of it's existance. Ask a library writer why they wrote it and they'll tell you it's because they want it to be used. Now...
So why is the GPL restricting, even forbidding, the normal and intended purpose of Readline? I though the GPL said it didn't restrict usage?
"It is these types of situation that the GPL is designed for. It doesn't rip off the coders, it PROTECTS THEM!!!!!"
If you think that dynamically linking to a library is akin to ripping you off, then it's time for you to wake up and join the real world. So sue me and watch me laugh as the judge's chin hits the floor when you tell him grievance.
"BSD licenses allow code that you write to come under the control of other people, and you can't stop them."
It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction of GPL advocates to whine "it's not viral!" Perhaps it's time for BSD advocates to get their own whine, "nobody stole it, it's still right here!"
I don't know the exact details of the kerberos, but from your link I can make two educated guesses. One) Microsoft did not walk into MIT, pull out a pistol, and forcibly remove Kerberos from the premises. Two) The standard version of Kerberos still exists and Microsoft is in no way preventing anyone from freely accessing using it.
But I think you're unclear on the whole BSD concept of Free Software. Kerberos was freely shared with everyone, Bill Gates included. They didn't believe it was right to exclude certain classes of people from using Kerberos. Microsofts version of Kerberos is not the only version out there. Far from it. The BSD license is not a moral policeman that carefully scrutinizes each and every instance of the code to ensure that it is forever adherent to the wishes of the original developer.
Unlike GPL advocates, BSD advocates are not morally offended by the mere existance of proprietary software.
"As far as problems with the Artistic License, take a look at the OSD as commented by Bruce Perens for some gripes."
Bruce Perens is a legalist who wants precise definitions clearly laid out. But the Artistic License comes from the Perl world, where the motto is "there's more than one way to do everything".
But you're forgetting that everyone abandoned Perl! Who cares? If you care, then why did you abandon Perl?
But to allay your fears, if MegaPerl becomes a cumbersome entity to deal with, then the sources for Perl are still out there on an archive somewhere. But even if they're not, someone wrote an Open Source scripting language once, so the proof is there that someone can do it again.
Stop feeling threatened by the MegaPerls in the world. No one is making you use them. Relax. Your blood pressure will improve and you'll live longer.
"...the current slave-state of modern licenseing"
Oh please!!! What slave-state are you talking about? Please get a dictionary and look up the words you are using. A slave has to obey the dictates of his master. A slave cannot freely walk away from his plantation, chains and master.
However, if I am a user of proprietary software, I have every real and existing right to ignore the demands of the software owners. I can freely uninstall the software any time their blathering becomes and annoyance.
"If you still want to play the IP game, that's fine, but the GPL is not going to be there to help you!"
Then the GPL shouldn't be in the IP game either. It is the utmost of hypocrisy to decry the evilness of copyrights and then to turn around and enforce the wishes of the GPL with a copyright. This is a much different thing that "fighting fire with fire" because as any fireman will tell you, fire is not evil. Does Richard Stallman think he is so holy that he is above the laws he demands of Bill Gates?
"Red Hat is making money on GPL'd code."
No. Redhat is making money distributing GPL'd code.
"Alan Cox is getting paid to write GPL'd code."
Redhat is paying Alan to improve and maintain some of the code that they are distributing. If Alan wrote exactly the same code on his free time at home, Redhat would not buy it.
There is not one piece of Open Source software in the world that I am not able to obtain for free. I doesn't matter that the FSF charges thousands of dollars for the official GNU tools since I can get every one of them for for no cost at all.
"Nobody is forcing you to use GPL'd code. If you find yourself wanting to do so, you must either open your own code (GPL it)..."
Take a good look at the above sentence. The GPL says that it makes no restrictions whatsoever upon the use of the software. Yet here you are saying that Tom must GPL his software in order to *use* yours. No, I'm not playing tricky semantics. If dynamic linking is not the normal *use* and *purpose* of a GPL'd shared library, then please tell me what is?
"You claim that the GPL advocates are "passing moral judgement" "
What else do you people who require you distribute philosophical tracts along with their software?
"do not prevent anyone from doing the same" is a far, far cry from "do not prevent anyone from doing the same with any derivations, modifications, translations, or alterations"
That cheap knock-off has been around for about ten years. But I double checked on the patents. The Amway patent was "cyclonic action", using a single centrifugal vortex. The Dyson patent is a "dual vortex" which uses two vortexes in the same space.
If perl dies tomorrow and all that is left is MegaPerl, then perl itself wasn't worth that much to begin with.
If nobody is using an Open Source program, then who's left to complain about it anyway? Perl was released so that everyone could use the code. But if no one is using it anymore, what's the point of keeping it around?
People keep telling me that the GPL is not a religion. Then along comes an anonymous coward deeply and profoundly offended to his core being because someone disagreed disgreed with it. And because his religious faith has no foundation in reality, he can't even issue a well formed rebuttal. Instead he resorts to spewing filthy imagery.
As long as you did not change the license on the part that is mine, sure. And you, as the author of the package, are perfectly free to do this.
I would encourage you to make a note in your distribution that you have done this, though.
The GPL is very very different from "You may use, modify, distribute, and sell this program in any way you wish, provided you do not restrict others from doing the same" in one very important aspect.
The GPL attempts to assert control over the software you, and you alone, have written. It is one thing to require modifications to be under the same license, but quite another to require an independent module written wholly by someone else to adhere to it.
The above clause does not prevent you from using the software in any way with another license. The only thing it restricts you on is the original code. The GPL, on the other hand, severly restricts what libraries may be linked to in, what applications it may be linked to, what source code files may reside in the same package with it, etc.
I used to release my works under the AL, but have switched to the BSD. But I still have a warm spot in my heart for the AL nonetheless.
In order to understand the Artistic License, you first have to understand where it comes from. The AL first arrived on the scene with Perl. Perl, as you are aware, is a multi-disciplinary language. The hallmarks of Perl hackers are hubris, laziness and impatience. There is more than one way to do anything is the Perl motto. The Artistic License reflects all of these things, as well as the linguistic legerdemain of Larry Wall's humour.
Perl was release under a dual GPL/Artistic license. Larry wanted the hacker community to embrace Perl, but understand that there was a large contingent of "GPL or Go To Hell" reactionaries within it. He also wanted it to be used by the suits, but also understood that many in the corporate world are frightened of the viral nature of copyleft. By releasing Perl under a dual license, the user could choose whatever license they wanted and no one would ever know. You could be secretly using Artistic Perl while everyone else around you thought you were using the party line GPL. Or vice versa. Talk about subversion!
Bruce Perens perenially states his dislike for the AL because he thinks it is a "sloppy" license. Bruce Perens should take some classes in linguistics. "Artistic License" has a meaning beyond the mere name of a software license.
The main gist of the Artistic License is that you can do anything you want with the software, but you must let the user know you're doing it. Thus, you can take AL's software proprietary, but the user can't be hoodwinked into thinking he's running the real stuff, and you have to let the user know where to get the real stuff if he wants it.
If none of the above makes any sense, then just visualize the Artistic License on the middle of an imaginary line stretched between the BSD and GPL licenses.
Are you sure he's the inventor? It's been in use in the United States for a decade now. Up until a couple of years ago, Amway Corp had the US patent rights, and it was only available on the their vacumns. When the patent ran out, Eureka, Hoover, Red Devil, et al, came out with their own "new, revolutionary" versions. In fact, Dyson's DS05 looks almost identical to the old Amway CMS2000.
:-)
Of course, even if Mr. Dyson didn't invent this, he may have patented refinements to it. Or he may be the person Amway originally got their rights from.
p.s. No, I am not an Amway distributor. I won't be hitting you up to attend any recruitment meetings
The GPL does not prevent you from selling GPL'd software.
Go ask Cygnus who made their first millions selling GNU's stuff. They made their next millions with their own GPL's software which they sold. Their latest millions came when Redhat bought them with billions gained through selling CD's with substantials amounts of GPL'd software.
Or go ask Larry Wall. He released Perl under a GPL/Artistic combination. O'Reilly came along and made money off of it by selling books and CD's. They made enough money off of Perl that they had the hubris to hire Larry Wall!
"Anyway, an expert knows what he wants, and probably would not be very impressed with "expert" ratings."
You're right on that point. But what about an intelligent newbie. They see a rating for CoolLinux that says 9 (newbie) and 2 (expert). They know that they'll be able get it installed and running quickly, but will find limitations to it as they progress. If their goal is to just try out Linux and see what it's like they may go with it. But if they're planning to take a plunge and stick with it awhile, they may want to go with something that has a higher expert rating. Or they may be unfamiliar with Linux, but have good experience in BSD, Solaris or another Unix.