Why do you think that? Even if someone creates a proprietary program from BSD code, the original BSD code is still available. I'm not advocating either license here, just pointing out that's not necessarily an advantage of the GPL.
I consider it an advantage of the GPL. I believe that modifications to a 'open source' program should be open just as the original program.
Just as he/she benefited from having acces to the original code, so should others benefit from having access to his/her code.
This is only fair, a 'return on investment' for the community members that contributed is one way to look at it.
The gray areas you mention AFAIK, aren't really so gray. Basically, you only have to provide the source to those you're distributing it to. So anyone that can get a copy of the GPL'd program at your company has the right to get a copy of the source with those modifications from you, and has the right to redistribute it if they want to someone else.
While some people may be scared of the FSF, and while I do not agree with all of their views. (Sometimes with questionable methods/reasoning.) It's nice to know that they're out the protecting the interest of the community.
I don't think people realize how important it is that the FSF does this with the corporate world. Not only does this keep abuse of the community's gifts from happening, but it also makes corporate lawyers all warm and fuzzy because they can tell their bosses that they're all legal.
This service is something that's very important to the community's continued success. Don't underestimate it...
While I do not personally believe the GPL to be the "greatest thing since Cowboy Neal". The GPL guarantees one thing which BSDL, MIT, etc. won't gaurantee (AFAIK) and that is that the code will remain available to the user, freely redistributable and without patent restrictions, information collection rules, etc. that hinder the user's usage.
I think most people miss the point of the GPL, and that is to ensure that the source remains open, and that the program's life continues beyond someone's grubby paws.
Re:Conflict of values (somewhat OT)
on
Whither OpenAL?
·
· Score: 1
Hmm...Perhaps because no one likes Win2k, I mean really, most game devleopers and companies refuse to 'officially' support it win2k...I think that's a sign:)
As far as good clean sound, I feel like the sound is very clean, especially when coming from my Klipsch 4.1 Promedia THX certified speakers...
I would call the quality excellent. And to be honest, the only chipset with real PCI problems is VIA, and that's because the Live! generates a very tight PCI feedback loop, something that works fine with every intel chipset i've ever owned, and "Mysteriously" didn't work with the one horrible via chipset I owned (Apollo Pro 133a). As a side note, AGP support was horrid with that via chip as well. Last i'll ever buy a via chipset...
That's totally false. Once the author licenses something under the GPL he can continue to use his own version how he sees fit or release under another license, however, if he takes the GPL'd version and redistributes it, he has to do so under the GPL terms. Likewise, he can't take code from the GPL version and put it into his without his personal version becoming GPL.
The GPL does not own your program once you release it, you still own your program. However, only the version you placed under GPL is GPL'd....
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you think that? Even if someone creates a proprietary program from BSD code, the original BSD code is still available. I'm not advocating either license here, just pointing out that's not necessarily an advantage of the GPL. I consider it an advantage of the GPL. I believe that modifications to a 'open source' program should be open just as the original program. Just as he/she benefited from having acces to the original code, so should others benefit from having access to his/her code. This is only fair, a 'return on investment' for the community members that contributed is one way to look at it.
The gray areas you mention AFAIK, aren't really so gray. Basically, you only have to provide the source to those you're distributing it to. So anyone that can get a copy of the GPL'd program at your company has the right to get a copy of the source with those modifications from you, and has the right to redistribute it if they want to someone else.
While some people may be scared of the FSF, and while I do not agree with all of their views. (Sometimes with questionable methods/reasoning.) It's nice to know that they're out the protecting the interest of the community.
I don't think people realize how important it is that the FSF does this with the corporate world. Not only does this keep abuse of the community's gifts from happening, but it also makes corporate lawyers all warm and fuzzy because they can tell their bosses that they're all legal.
This service is something that's very important to the community's continued success. Don't underestimate it...
While I do not personally believe the GPL to be the "greatest thing since Cowboy Neal". The GPL guarantees one thing which BSDL, MIT, etc. won't gaurantee (AFAIK) and that is that the code will remain available to the user, freely redistributable and without patent restrictions, information collection rules, etc. that hinder the user's usage.
I think most people miss the point of the GPL, and that is to ensure that the source remains open, and that the program's life continues beyond someone's grubby paws.
Hmm...Perhaps because no one likes Win2k, I mean really, most game devleopers and companies refuse to 'officially' support it win2k...I think that's a sign :)
As far as good clean sound, I feel like the sound is very clean, especially when coming from my Klipsch 4.1 Promedia THX certified speakers...
I would call the quality excellent. And to be honest, the only chipset with real PCI problems is VIA, and that's because the Live! generates a very tight PCI feedback loop, something that works fine with every intel chipset i've ever owned, and "Mysteriously" didn't work with the one horrible via chipset I owned (Apollo Pro 133a). As a side note, AGP support was horrid with that via chip as well. Last i'll ever buy a via chipset...
That's totally false. Once the author licenses something under the GPL he can continue to use his own version how he sees fit or release under another license, however, if he takes the GPL'd version and redistributes it, he has to do so under the GPL terms. Likewise, he can't take code from the GPL version and put it into his without his personal version becoming GPL. The GPL does not own your program once you release it, you still own your program. However, only the version you placed under GPL is GPL'd....