Don't get me wrong, I see the benefit of the GPL, and the problems. I don't have an agenda or religion to push here.
But you still evaded the assertion that GPL is "selfish" compared so other licenses such as for example, the BSD license.
That was the major thrust of the parent post, and based on the evidence presented by yourself in your initial post and your follow-up would seem to back up the "selfish" claim.
In fact every part of your reply seems to assert yet again, that the GPL is "selfish". Like I said earlier I have no problem at all with whatever license someone chooses, its their choice.
Could I ask you to read that GPL exception clause again ?
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
The nexus is "accompanies". By having GPL executables "accompany" other components seems to very clearly require the "accompanying" code to also be released under the GPL. This would appear to rope in every component of a binary distribution, would it not ?
Good on you. If you want, you can write NTFS code for Apple in your spare time. I'm sure they'd appreciate it. But don't complain that other people don't share your view. It's part of being human.
But again, there is this "selfish" notion arising again. The GPL is really all about NOT letting people do as they please with the code. I undertand the motivations and intention of the GPL to promote sharing and openess, and according to the GPL doctrine it requires sacrificing some rights, to protect some others. However I find it quite ironic that the GPL has been turned around and used as a (quite nifty) tool to prevent open competition by commercial companies.
The GPL is very useful when you want to be "selfish". And btw I don't have a problem with the "selfish" notion, I just wish the GPL crowd would fess up and admit that, "No, the GPL is not as free as other alternatives and thats the way we like it. It works for us."
So by your own explanation I take it you are agreement with the parent post then.
For the reasons you give, the GPL _is_ therefore as the parent puts it, a more "selfish" license and not as free.
This whole resentment for others "getting a free leg up" is what I find most odourous in the GPL camp. We all "get a leg up" from both GPL and non GPL software, software is a tool... thats what it is supposed to do. Why the sour grapes then when your aim under the GPL is to share it ?
Lets be honest here, the GPL is a great tool for "selfish" organisations to release code with strings attached, but still hold the rights to distribute under other license terms (possibly for additional fee), see TrollTech/Qt for an example. Using a BSD style license would not be as revenue friendly to organisations like TrollTech because they really would be giving anyone the freedom to compete directly with them, the freedom to not have to pay for commercial use, the freedom to do what they want.
To clarify, I have no problem with anyone using the license of their choice for code they write, at the end of the day it is their right to choose. I just find the GPL less pragmatic, and brings with it unwanted philosophical baggage which *I* personally would rather avoid. The GPL also has some very difficult to answer technical areas.
One of these technial areas is the GPL special exception clause regarding not having to provide source code for major components of the base operating system or other binary components, unless those compoenents normally accompany the executable. So if I ship a binary operating system image inside an appliance (eg a Mac) that contains both GPL and non GPL code, am I forced to release my code (and potentially other third party code which I have may not have source or permission) under the GPL because the GPL executables "normally accompany" the said operating system and other proprietry software ?
Does everyone just turn a blind eye in the embedded GNU/Linux world ?
Does this lack of enforcement after "due time", translate to some kind of legal right/permission ? eg I believe that property law requires that you enforce your borders, otherwise after some sufficient amount of time any encroachment is deemed the new boundary.
Slashdot Mirror
What you meant to say was a kernel of large stature
Don't get me wrong, I see the benefit of the GPL, and the problems. I don't have an agenda or religion to push here.
But you still evaded the assertion that GPL is "selfish" compared so other licenses such as for example, the BSD license. That was the major thrust of the parent post, and based on the evidence presented by yourself in your initial post and your follow-up would seem to back up the "selfish" claim.
In fact every part of your reply seems to assert yet again, that the GPL is "selfish". Like I said earlier I have no problem at all with whatever license someone chooses, its their choice.
Could I ask you to read that GPL exception clause again ?
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
The nexus is "accompanies". By having GPL executables "accompany" other components seems to very clearly require the "accompanying" code to also be released under the GPL. This would appear to rope in every component of a binary distribution, would it not ?
Good on you. If you want, you can write NTFS code for Apple in your spare time. I'm sure they'd appreciate it. But don't complain that other people don't share your view. It's part of being human.
But again, there is this "selfish" notion arising again. The GPL is really all about NOT letting people do as they please with the code. I undertand the motivations and intention of the GPL to promote sharing and openess, and according to the GPL doctrine it requires sacrificing some rights, to protect some others. However I find it quite ironic that the GPL has been turned around and used as a (quite nifty) tool to prevent open competition by commercial companies.
The GPL is very useful when you want to be "selfish". And btw I don't have a problem with the "selfish" notion, I just wish the GPL crowd would fess up and admit that, "No, the GPL is not as free as other alternatives and thats the way we like it. It works for us."
So by your own explanation I take it you are agreement with the parent post then.
For the reasons you give, the GPL _is_ therefore as the parent puts it, a more "selfish" license and not as free.
This whole resentment for others "getting a free leg up" is what I find most odourous in the GPL camp.
We all "get a leg up" from both GPL and non GPL software, software is a tool... thats what it is supposed to do.
Why the sour grapes then when your aim under the GPL is to share it ?
Lets be honest here, the GPL is a great tool for "selfish" organisations to release code with strings attached, but still hold the rights to distribute under other license terms (possibly for additional fee), see TrollTech/Qt for an example. Using a BSD style license would not be as revenue friendly to organisations like TrollTech because they really would be giving anyone the freedom to compete directly with them, the freedom to not have to pay for commercial use, the freedom to do what they want.
To clarify, I have no problem with anyone using the license of their choice for code they write, at the end of the day it is their right to choose. I just find the GPL less pragmatic, and brings with it unwanted philosophical baggage which *I* personally would rather avoid. The GPL also has some very difficult to answer technical areas.
One of these technial areas is the GPL special exception clause regarding not having to provide source code for major components of the base operating system or other binary components, unless those compoenents normally accompany the executable. So if I ship a binary operating system image inside an appliance (eg a Mac) that contains both GPL and non GPL code, am I forced to release my code (and potentially other third party code which I have may not have source or permission) under the GPL because the GPL executables "normally accompany" the said operating system and other proprietry software ?
Does everyone just turn a blind eye in the embedded GNU/Linux world ?
Does this lack of enforcement after "due time", translate to some kind of legal right/permission ? eg I believe that property law requires that you enforce your borders, otherwise after some sufficient amount of time any encroachment is deemed the new boundary.