Like learning a second language, learning Dvorak doesn't mean you forget Qwerty. Once you have both down, you should be able to switch back and forth effortlessly. Where it's available, I use Dvorak. Where it isn't, I use Qwerty. *shrug* It's really not that big of a deal.
Your point is well spoken; I may have been rash calling the GPL selfish. I see how the GPL helps an author by discouraging the actions you've illustrated. Unfortunately, although he only intends to protect his work from being exploited, using the GPL also discourages everyone ELSE interested in his work from benefitting from it, if they aren't interested in the GPL.
For example - Joe Shmo wants to use a slick piece of code that you've GPL'd. For whatever reason, he can't, or doesn't want to GPL his own code. Even if he isn't in competition with your own project and means no ill will, he has no choice but to pass up whatever he could have gained from your offering. Net loss to everyone.
Flubba, now the co-author of PocketNES, has said he was interested in working on it BECAUSE it was left wide open. He's made many improvements to it, and used the experience to go on making two other superb emulators (PCEAdvance and Goomba). Arguably none of this would have happened if a more closed license was used. Just a lame anecdote maybe, but it makes my point. Evildoers aren't the only ones being pushed away with a protective GPL scheme.
Now this MiniLZO issue looms over PocketNES. The MiniLZO library fits my needs perfectly, but beacuse I'm not interested in the GPL, I'm not allowed to use it, even though PocketNES is in absolutely no way a threat to MiniLZO.
What am I trying to say? I guess it's that while the GPL may protect an author, it does so at detriment to anyone who isn't a GPL fanboy. Your source is only accesible to those who like the GPL, or are willing to submit to the (whether real or percieved) arm-twisting it does. I'm having a hard time coming up with examples where a lesser (for ex., non-commercial) license can't do just as well as the GPL, while at the same time making your work more accesible to everyone.
If this was supposed to be in the PD, the author should have written all the code for the program or based the work on other PD programs. The author should not have based the program on something else they didn't hold the copyright to under a license which doesn't allow PD derivatives.
An unfortunate mistake I've admitted to. I may have done things differently if I was aware of this at the time I released the source. This doesn't change my stance though.
The so-called "selfish[ness]" of the GNU GPL will become clear to anyone who has released their program under a non-copyleft free software license or in the PD and then watched as they had to compete against a derivative of their own program. This is not a pleasant experience and yet by the time it happens, one has already chosen to forgo all copyright power to stop it from occurring. This is why everyone "should [...] care if someone else profits off of something" they hold the copyright to.
If you're not prepared for the ramifications of releasing something into the PD (someone taking your stuff and running with it) then I agree with you - you're a fool for doing it. Yes, the GPL is a way to protect yourself from this. This is what makes me call the GPL selfish - it's saying "I don't want to make money from this, but dammit, I don't want to see you get something out of it either". Oh, it's not about the money? But it's still about control. It says "Here, have my source, it's free! But I get to tell you what to do with it. And I get to dictate what you do with YOUR source too, since you used something that's mine." It's selfish in that you're still trying to maintain control over something that you've deigned as free. If you're worried about competition, like you say, then you're a dingbat for making it free in the first place.
Personally, I'm a bit suprised Nintendo doesn't license out their emulator (used in the "Classic NES Series") to other companies. Nin's own emulator is in many ways superior to PocketNES (this is loopy from the article, btw, so I'm allowed to bag on my own software:)
Slashdot Mirror
Like learning a second language, learning Dvorak doesn't mean you forget Qwerty. Once you have both down, you should be able to switch back and forth effortlessly. Where it's available, I use Dvorak. Where it isn't, I use Qwerty. *shrug* It's really not that big of a deal.
Your point is well spoken; I may have been rash calling the GPL selfish. I see how the GPL helps an author by discouraging the actions you've illustrated. Unfortunately, although he only intends to protect his work from being exploited, using the GPL also discourages everyone ELSE interested in his work from benefitting from it, if they aren't interested in the GPL.
For example - Joe Shmo wants to use a slick piece of code that you've GPL'd. For whatever reason, he can't, or doesn't want to GPL his own code. Even if he isn't in competition with your own project and means no ill will, he has no choice but to pass up whatever he could have gained from your offering. Net loss to everyone.
Flubba, now the co-author of PocketNES, has said he was interested in working on it BECAUSE it was left wide open. He's made many improvements to it, and used the experience to go on making two other superb emulators (PCEAdvance and Goomba). Arguably none of this would have happened if a more closed license was used. Just a lame anecdote maybe, but it makes my point. Evildoers aren't the only ones being pushed away with a protective GPL scheme.
Now this MiniLZO issue looms over PocketNES. The MiniLZO library fits my needs perfectly, but beacuse I'm not interested in the GPL, I'm not allowed to use it, even though PocketNES is in absolutely no way a threat to MiniLZO.
What am I trying to say? I guess it's that while the GPL may protect an author, it does so at detriment to anyone who isn't a GPL fanboy. Your source is only accesible to those who like the GPL, or are willing to submit to the (whether real or percieved) arm-twisting it does. I'm having a hard time coming up with examples where a lesser (for ex., non-commercial) license can't do just as well as the GPL, while at the same time making your work more accesible to everyone.
GPL + controversy = guaranteed Slashdot headline. Shocking!
:)
Personally, I'm a bit suprised Nintendo doesn't license out their emulator (used in the "Classic NES Series") to other companies. Nin's own emulator is in many ways superior to PocketNES (this is loopy from the article, btw, so I'm allowed to bag on my own software