Richard Stallman has said, quite recently, that GPLed software (which he calls "Free Software" with initial caps) is not "Open Source." And the GPL violates the points #5 and $6 of the Open Source Definition because it is designed to discriminate against specific people (commercial programmres) and a specific field of endeavor (the creation of commercial software). So, as part of the revision, the maintainers of the site and the definition should heed Stallman's words and remove the GPL from the list of approved licenses.
If the software is a work made for hire -- which, according to your account, it is -- it belongs to your employer and you do not have the right to give it away. Just because you have marked it with your name and copyright notice and stamped the GPL on it does not mean that you own it or that the terms of the GPL actually apply to it. You did not have the right to put the GPL there.
This is a good thing, IMHO, because software generated by taxpayer money should never be GPLed. The GPL prevents commercial reuse of the code, preventing commercial programmers and others in the private sector from being able to build on it. This is discriminatory and almost certainly contrary to Federal law, which prevents the work of Federal agencies from being copyrighted or withheld from public use.
The comment above exemplifies the spite and malice which Richard Stallman, and many other proponents of the GPL, express against commercial programmers who wish to make an honest living from their work.
The poster above believes that asking to be paid anything at all for one's labor constitutes treating users of that software "like dirt." In reality, it is those who take such a mean-spirited attitude toward others who treat their fellow man "like dirt." This is unethical, and is one of the reasons why the GPL is likewise unethical.
Have a look at the GPL. Tell me about the freedoms it grants, and tell me it is not "Free".
OK, I'll tell you. It's not "free."
The GPL begins with an intentionally misleading "preamble" that states that it makes software "free." It then goes on to impose onerous restrictions on the use of the software by the one group of people who can make the best and most productive use of it: programmers.
What the GPL really says is, "If you're an end user, use this program for free and don't buy one that costs money. That'll undercut those Evil People who are trying to make a living producing software. But if you one of those evil people, you can't use it as the basis of your own work. To enjoy a reward for your hard work, you'll have to reimplement everything from scratch -- lots of dull, boring work before you can add anything new. And in the meantime, your market will be destroyed because many people will find the GPLed version adequate for their needs. Just try to make a living in this product category, sucker!"
In short, the GPL is an instrument of Richard Stallman's spite against commercial developers. For the history of this, read the book "Hackers," by Steven Levy.
The GPL is especially nasty because it it discriminates against a field of endeavor: the production of commercial software. This violates point #6 of the Open Source Definition. This means that GPLed software is not Open Source. And it's certainly not free.
'm sorry, If you think that the GPL is the reason for BeOS going nowhere, I strongly suggest you take a look over at Apple.
Actually, Apple proves my point. They're using BSD-licensed code and it's probably going to be what keeps them alive.
You cannot make money writing or publishing GPLed code. That's why all of the Linux companies are, one by one, failing. This was (and is) Richard Stallman's stated intent! (Read his "GNU Manifesto" for his most strident statement of that intent.) The GPL's "poison pill" is intended to kill companies, and it's working.
Again, Allchin's statement was made for one of two reasons. Either he's stupid -- which is quite possible considering what a bad liar he was on the stand during the Microsoft trial -- or he's smart like a fox, knowing that condemning the GPL will cause GPL zealots to redouble their efforts. If the GPL gains more influence, Microsoft wins because it's got an entrenched position and no new competitors can survive. It's like tag team wrestling: whatever other opponent arises, the two (the GPL and Microsoft) will take him on together and win.
Think about it. GPLed software keeps Microsoft's competitors at bay by undercutting them in the marketplace. This is why BeOS is going nowhere;
it's caught between Microsoft on the one hand and Linux on the other.
The GPL also prevents small developers from re-using publicly available code in their own products, again preventing them from competing with Microsoft.
Microsoft doesn't need to copy or use GPLed code, because it has more money than [insert the name of your favorite deity here]. It can afford to hire endless armies of programmers to implement anything it wants. So, the GPL doesn't keep it from creating software. Not being able to incorporate GPLed code in a closed source product is a non-issue to Microsoft. It's only an issue to companies that might one day rise to compete against Microsoft. So long as those would-be competitors are forced to rewrite things in order to make money (you can't make money from GPLed code), they'll be spinning their wheels instead of going after Gates & Co.
So, why is Allchin making nasty remarks about the GPL? Because -- as he ably proved when he testified during the Microsoft trial -- he's clueless. (Sigh.)
Most spam that claims to be from Yahoo isn't. The RFC822 "From:" header is spoofed, and the spam is really originating elsewhere.
If your ISP will let you run Procmail filters (most UNIX-based ones will), your best bet is to set up a Procmail filter which checks the RBL and also looks for other signs of spam. I recommend a couple in the paper.
Yes; Daemon News, which I normally heartily recommend, also reprinted the paper. (A few of the links have been updated in the master copy.) Unfortunately, they printed a very nasty ad hominem attack on Yours Truly in the "Daemon's Advocate" column in their December issue. This was not called for and the editors certainly should have caught it before it went to print. I think that the publication owes me an apology for that one.
There's a qmail anti-spam FAQ at http://www.summersault.com/chris/techno/qmail/qmai l-antispam.html. Unfortunately, as you'll see, qmail doesn't have an intrinsic ability to check a DNS blacklist. You'll need to use an external wrapper or Procmail recipes, both of which can take a bit of skill to set up. As I've mentioned in another post, Sendmail is actually easier to configure for RBL-style blacklists.
But if you have an
acne faced part-time high school student doing
your sys admin work with sendmail--you are in
big trouble.
If you're in this situation, you're in big trouble no matter what MTA you're using.
Sendmail's code isn't as bad as you paint it, though. Thousands of pairs of experienced eyes have pored over it -- certainly more than for any other MTA.
If you really are concerned about Sendmail, wrap it with smtpd or use qmail. Warning: you'll still need to understand the underlying principles to control relaying and block spam and malware. And don't assume that it will necessarily be that much easier. as this FAQ explains, using spam prevention tools such as DNS blacklists with qmail is more complex than doing it with Sendmail (which requires only one line per blacklist in your.mc file).
Really, guys -- the "BSD is dead" trolls are getting very, very old. BSD is here for keeps and is gaining in popularity; it's not going away just because a few overzealous advocates of other OSes are in denial. Besides, as I've mentioned, every technique I've mentioned in the paper -- even the Sendmail configuration options, which have equivalents in most other MTAs -- is useful on other OS platforms and with other mail software. So, even if you're a total Linux (or qmail, or exim, or Lotus Notes, or Groupwise) fanatic, you still need to know these techniques to be a good sysadmin. I'd like to see more discussion of filtering techniques.... Even the state of the art filters and HTML manglers are nowhere near perfect yet.
Unfortunately, the thinking in this book is a bit muddled, terribly one-sided, and quite vindictive. Throughout the book, the author spends many words decrying "corruption" without ever stating what he believes the word to mean. Likewise, the author appears to believe that all control -- even of one's own situation -- is inherently evil, to the extent that he does not believe that authors should have any rights to, or be able to control the use of, their own work. Nor does he propose any mechanism whereby creativity should be rewarded. Because he advocates the abolition of existing institutions (which have worked for hundreds of years) without suggesting viable alternatives, the author is promoting wholesale destruction rather than a better world.
Proper copyright protection strikes a balance between the interests of producer and consumer. RMS, who is vindictive and destructive, would eliminate all compensation for creative people of all stripes -- artists, musicians, inventors, composers, programmers, architects, etc. The RIAA and the promoters of SDMI and similar schemes go to the other extreme; they would nickel-and-dime consumers to death and prevent work from ever passing into the public domain. Both extremes should be rejected in favor of a balanced scheme that has benefits for both producers and consumers.
It's sad that IBM has chosen to side with the large, Draconian content producers (who do not, of course, represent the wills of the majority of creative people).
I strongly recommend that all interested parties write messages to Mr. Jeffrey Lotspeich of the following form:
If your company implements the scheme described in your papers, our company will cease to buy all IBM products and will no longer make any of our products available for your hardware, software, or systems. We will further encourage others to do likewise.
Bruce's admission that the GPL has a "loophole" constitutes agreement that GPLed software is not truly free. Think about it. If the software were truly free, there'd be no restriction from which anyone would attempt to escape via a "loophole!"
Just goes to show that the FSF's name itself is misleading propaganda. The licensing it advocates makes software non-free, intentionally, for the purpose of hurting creative people and their businesses.
Stallman has stated his intention to do this for more than 20 years, starting with The GNU Manifesto, in which he advocates reducing programmers' salaries so that they'll be forced into low-paying jobs in academia.
Bruce Perens, on the other hand, will do anything that will make the license more viral, and therefore more harmful to the companies that compete with the ones on whose boards he serves.
Lots of lies and hypocrisy here, but no real freedom at all.
In other words, "We had to burn the business in order to save it."
Isn't it odd that every time a new restriction is proposed for the GPL, GPL proponents such as Perens claim that it will make software "more free?"
This is only true, of course, in the Orwellian sense -- "Freedom is Slavery." The simple fact is that th GPL makes software non-free, and the new mutation is likely to make it even less free. All out of spite against anyone who tries to earn a living from software.
Stan Liebowitz represents himself as an "academic" but in fact is a paid shill for Microsoft. It was Liebowitz who pushed the UT Business School into a long-term contract with Microsoft which not only locked them into using Microsoft software but forced students to use it as well. Liebowitz likewise designed course materials -- such as a Web design course -- which taught students only about Microsoft products and tools and omitted information on industry standards and on alternative products. (One goal of this course appeared to be to teach students to create pages that would be visible only from Internet Explorer and not from other browsers.) Liebowitz is now paid by Microsoft to lecture all over the country as an "independent" academic who just happens to embrace Microsoft's stance on every issue. He is clearly not only a sellout but a dangerous fraud.
At last, the truth comes out: Stallman is -- yes -- proprietary about his "GNU" projects, including GNOME. Long ago, he stated that he wanted GNU to "remove operating systems from the realm of competition." As we can see, it was not the licensing of Qt that really bothered Stallman, but rather that KDE is competition for GNOME, which he controls utterly because all of the GNOME code has been signed over -- lock, stock, and barrel -- to the FSF. (Since Stallman has complete and total control over the FSF, this really means that it's been signed over to him personally.)
Free, schmee! Stallman's aim was never to create software that was really free for everyone to use, but rather to build an empire. Stallman sits atop the FSF's hoard of software and opposes KDE because it threatens that empire by offering an alternative.
It's time for the open source community to recognize that this is what Stallman is up to. Abandon the GPL, which makes software non-free, and adopt truly free licenses which do not restrict the creation of derivative works. Saint Ig-GNU-cius is no saint at all, and this shows it.
It's Richard Stallman's brand for his growing hoard of software -- all licensed so that he has control of what happens to it and can use it as a weapon against commercial programmers' livelihoods. It should be as deplored in our space as any other brand or logo.
As part of the General Public License (GPL, also known as "copylefting"), the user had to also agree not to impose licensing restrictions on others. Furthermore, all enhancements to the code -- and even code that intermingled cooperatively developed software with that developed separately -- had to be licensed on the same terms. It is these contractual terms that distinguish open source software from shareware....
The author makes three key mistakes in the above. First, he states that the "copyleft" terms of the GPL are a defining characteristic of open source software -- which they are not. The BSD and MIT X licenses do not encumber programs with the onerous requirement to give away one's work when one uses the code, and both are open source.
In fact, a strong argument can be made that because the GPL discriminates against a field of endeavor -- the creation of commercial software -- by denying the use of code to authors of closed source programs, it does not qualify as an "open source" license as defined by the "Open Source Definition" posted at http://www.opensource.org. So, the BSD license, the MIT X license, and the Artistic License -- the licenses used for Sendmail, Apache, BIND, etc. -- are open source licenses, but the GPL is not. The author fails to note this.
Second, it is not true that the GPL requires authors of derivative works "not to impose licensing restrictions on others." In fact, it requires that licensing restrictions be imposed -- the very onerous restrictions which are part of the GPL itself. The author of a derivative work is even required to attach the "preamble" of the GPL -- a political manifesto -- to his own work.
Finally, the author mistakenly states that the GPL is not "viral." In fact, it is viral, in that a single line of GPLed code can "contaminate" a much larger work and force it to be licensed under the GPL. Apparently, the author has bought the rhetoric of the FSF uncritically and failed to note this.
In short, the GPL not only fails the test for an "open source" license, but also places onerous restrictions upon the code. This is intentional. It is Stallman's explicit intent, as described on the FSF Web site, that GPLed code transform open source into a weapon against the interests of commercial software developers. This intent is not noted in the text and should be.
Interestingly, the GPL is many times longer than the standard Microsoft EULA. The MIT X license is not. If simplicity is a virtue, the GPL is not at all "virtuous...."
Well, if you are going to be idealistic, it's a good idea to make sure that you're not being hoodwinked -- or living in a fantasy rather than reality.
The fact is that the FSF is an empire. It's not selfless; in fact, it's extremely greedy. And deceptive. Not only has it claimed millions of dollars' worth of code as its own (while at the same time calling itself a "charity"), but it is not truthful about its goals. The FSF is, in fact, one of the businesses seeking to "stomp" on you as a programmer.
You mention in your message above that you believe that you can license code under the GPL and also make money by relicensing the same code for commercial use. The FSF says this as a way of persuading the gullible to stamp the GPL onto their code. But once they do so, they find that they can no longer make any money from their work! Here's why.
First, when the GPLed code is released, the author will doubtless receive suggested changes and improvements -- often in the form of code. The problem is that, since the initial code was licensed under the GPL, the code which is contributed back is generally licensed under the GPL.
This creates problems for the original author. If he accepts a single contribution which is not signed over to him so that he may license it commercially, his whole work is irrevocably licensed ONLY under the GPL and his ability to legally dual-license goes away.
What if the author refuses to accept the changes to avoid this? In this case, a second mechanism kicks in. The contributor -- or anyone else -- can fork the project to create a GPL-only work that competes directly with the author's and drives him out of business.
Finally, dual licensing does not work because only a very un-savvy businessman would license code for money when there's a GPLed version available. This is true for two reasons. First, the existence of the GPLed version effectively reduces the market value of its functionality to zero; anyone can get that functionality for free! Thus, if one pays money to license GPLed code, one is paying for something which has no market value to end users. This puts the commercial developer "in the hole" from the start. Second, the GPL provides for a few "loopholes" which allow the author's potential licensees to use the code without licensing it. (For example, some vendors of print drivers for UNIX invoke GNU Ghostscript but then post-process the output through their own software after that. They don't change GhostScript itself.) So, in many cases, they have no need to license the GPLed code, and the author loses.
In your message above, you also mention that you remember with fondness the days when you could use code from magazines in your own work. It's unfortunate that you can't do this with GPLed code, because it would force you to forfeit the fruits of your own labor. But luckily, there's another rich source of code that isn't encumbered by the GPL: NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and many other BSD-licensed and MIT X-licensed programs. If you truly wish to realize your ideals, you should be contributing to this base of software, which is REALLY free, rather than adding to the FSF's arsenal.
Hmmm - it sounds like Stallman called the person a parasite, because he thought (rightfully so? I dunno, I wasn't there) that the individual was going to take a piece of GPL'd code and try to make a forked proprietary version, without giving the code back to the community.
Well, it "sounds like" you don't know what you're talking about.
John Ousterhout is the creator of Tcl and the CEO of Scriptics. Tcl is open source; in fact, it's licensed under a BSD-style license, not the mean-spritied GPL.
Stallman branded Ousterhout a "parasite" despite his generosity and openness because he dares (horrors!) to sell Tcl books, development tools, and other related products.
This would be the definition of a parasite.
To Stallman, a "parasite" is anyone who does not give Stallman what he wants.
You seem to be of the position of the befuddled businessman who doesn't understand the reasoning behind the GPL, the FSF, and RMS.
You obviously have no idea who I am -- and, again, are completely off base. From the above, it appears that you may not understand these things. Their purpose is to attack and hurt programmers, or in fact anyone who wants to make a living via the creation of intellectual property.
I don't understand the need to to profit for profit sake, nor do I understand the drive to "have it all" -
Well, Stallman's drive appears to be to wipe out all commercial software vendors while the FSF controls all of the software that remains -- that is, to "have it all."
Slashdot Mirror
--Brett Glass
This is a good thing, IMHO, because software generated by taxpayer money should never be GPLed. The GPL prevents commercial reuse of the code, preventing commercial programmers and others in the private sector from being able to build on it. This is discriminatory and almost certainly contrary to Federal law, which prevents the work of Federal agencies from being copyrighted or withheld from public use.
--Brett Glass
The poster above believes that asking to be paid anything at all for one's labor constitutes treating users of that software "like dirt." In reality, it is those who take such a mean-spirited attitude toward others who treat their fellow man "like dirt." This is unethical, and is one of the reasons why the GPL is likewise unethical.
--Brett
OK, I'll tell you. It's not "free."
The GPL begins with an intentionally misleading "preamble" that states that it makes software "free." It then goes on to impose onerous restrictions on the use of the software by the one group of people who can make the best and most productive use of it: programmers.
What the GPL really says is, "If you're an end user, use this program for free and don't buy one that costs money. That'll undercut those Evil People who are trying to make a living producing software. But if you one of those evil people, you can't use it as the basis of your own work. To enjoy a reward for your hard work, you'll have to reimplement everything from scratch -- lots of dull, boring work before you can add anything new. And in the meantime, your market will be destroyed because many people will find the GPLed version adequate for their needs. Just try to make a living in this product category, sucker!"
In short, the GPL is an instrument of Richard Stallman's spite against commercial developers. For the history of this, read the book "Hackers," by Steven Levy.
The GPL is especially nasty because it it discriminates against a field of endeavor: the production of commercial software. This violates point #6 of the Open Source Definition. This means that GPLed software is not Open Source. And it's certainly not free.
--Brett Glass
No, they can't. Again, they're all dropping like flies when they try. And that's the stated purpose of the GPL: to run them out of business.
They just can't follow the Gates business plan.
If they use the GPL, it makes no difference what business plan they try. They're lost.
--Brett
Actually, Apple proves my point. They're using BSD-licensed code and it's probably going to be what keeps them alive.
You cannot make money writing or publishing GPLed code. That's why all of the Linux companies are, one by one, failing. This was (and is) Richard Stallman's stated intent! (Read his "GNU Manifesto" for his most strident statement of that intent.) The GPL's "poison pill" is intended to kill companies, and it's working.
Again, Allchin's statement was made for one of two reasons. Either he's stupid -- which is quite possible considering what a bad liar he was on the stand during the Microsoft trial -- or he's smart like a fox, knowing that condemning the GPL will cause GPL zealots to redouble their efforts. If the GPL gains more influence, Microsoft wins because it's got an entrenched position and no new competitors can survive. It's like tag team wrestling: whatever other opponent arises, the two (the GPL and Microsoft) will take him on together and win.
--Brett Glass
The GPL also prevents small developers from re-using publicly available code in their own products, again preventing them from competing with Microsoft.
Microsoft doesn't need to copy or use GPLed code, because it has more money than [insert the name of your favorite deity here]. It can afford to hire endless armies of programmers to implement anything it wants. So, the GPL doesn't keep it from creating software. Not being able to incorporate GPLed code in a closed source product is a non-issue to Microsoft. It's only an issue to companies that might one day rise to compete against Microsoft. So long as those would-be competitors are forced to rewrite things in order to make money (you can't make money from GPLed code), they'll be spinning their wheels instead of going after Gates & Co.
So, why is Allchin making nasty remarks about the GPL? Because -- as he ably proved when he testified during the Microsoft trial -- he's clueless. (Sigh.)
--Brett Glass
If your ISP will let you run Procmail filters (most UNIX-based ones will), your best bet is to set up a Procmail filter which checks the RBL and also looks for other signs of spam. I recommend a couple in the paper.
--Brett
That's because the craven Greg Lehey quoted me without attribution.
--Brett Glass
--Brett
--Brett
If you're in this situation, you're in big trouble no matter what MTA you're using.
Sendmail's code isn't as bad as you paint it, though. Thousands of pairs of experienced eyes have pored over it -- certainly more than for any other MTA.
If you really are concerned about Sendmail, wrap it with smtpd or use qmail. Warning: you'll still need to understand the underlying principles to control relaying and block spam and malware. And don't assume that it will necessarily be that much easier. as this FAQ explains, using spam prevention tools such as DNS blacklists with qmail is more complex than doing it with Sendmail (which requires only one line per blacklist in your .mc file).
--Brett
Really, guys -- the "BSD is dead" trolls are getting very, very old. BSD is here for keeps and is gaining in popularity; it's not going away just because a few overzealous advocates of other OSes are in denial. Besides, as I've mentioned, every technique I've mentioned in the paper -- even the Sendmail configuration options, which have equivalents in most other MTAs -- is useful on other OS platforms and with other mail software. So, even if you're a total Linux (or qmail, or exim, or Lotus Notes, or Groupwise) fanatic, you still need to know these techniques to be a good sysadmin. I'd like to see more discussion of filtering techniques.... Even the state of the art filters and HTML manglers are nowhere near perfect yet.
--Brett Glass
Unfortunately, the thinking in this book is a bit muddled, terribly one-sided, and quite vindictive. Throughout the book, the author spends many words decrying "corruption" without ever stating what he believes the word to mean. Likewise, the author appears to believe that all control -- even of one's own situation -- is inherently evil, to the extent that he does not believe that authors should have any rights to, or be able to control the use of, their own work. Nor does he propose any mechanism whereby creativity should be rewarded. Because he advocates the abolition of existing institutions (which have worked for hundreds of years) without suggesting viable alternatives, the author is promoting wholesale destruction rather than a better world.
--Brett
It's sad that IBM has chosen to side with the large, Draconian content producers (who do not, of course, represent the wills of the majority of creative people).
I strongly recommend that all interested parties write messages to Mr. Jeffrey Lotspeich of the following form:
If your company implements the scheme described in your papers, our company will cease to buy all IBM products and will no longer make any of our products available for your hardware, software, or systems. We will further encourage others to do likewise.
--Brett Glass
Just goes to show that the FSF's name itself is misleading propaganda. The licensing it advocates makes software non-free, intentionally, for the purpose of hurting creative people and their businesses.
Stallman has stated his intention to do this for more than 20 years, starting with The GNU Manifesto, in which he advocates reducing programmers' salaries so that they'll be forced into low-paying jobs in academia.
Bruce Perens, on the other hand, will do anything that will make the license more viral, and therefore more harmful to the companies that compete with the ones on whose boards he serves.
Lots of lies and hypocrisy here, but no real freedom at all.
Isn't it odd that every time a new restriction is proposed for the GPL, GPL proponents such as Perens claim that it will make software "more free?"
This is only true, of course, in the Orwellian sense -- "Freedom is Slavery." The simple fact is that th GPL makes software non-free, and the new mutation is likely to make it even less free. All out of spite against anyone who tries to earn a living from software.
--Brett Glass
Stan Liebowitz represents himself as an "academic" but in fact is a paid shill for Microsoft. It was Liebowitz who pushed the UT Business School into a long-term contract with Microsoft which not only locked them into using Microsoft software but forced students to use it as well. Liebowitz likewise designed course materials -- such as a Web design course -- which taught students only about Microsoft products and tools and omitted information on industry standards and on alternative products. (One goal of this course appeared to be to teach students to create pages that would be visible only from Internet Explorer and not from other browsers.) Liebowitz is now paid by Microsoft to lecture all over the country as an "independent" academic who just happens to embrace Microsoft's stance on every issue. He is clearly not only a sellout but a dangerous fraud.
Free, schmee! Stallman's aim was never to create software that was really free for everyone to use, but rather to build an empire. Stallman sits atop the FSF's hoard of software and opposes KDE because it threatens that empire by offering an alternative.
It's time for the open source community to recognize that this is what Stallman is up to. Abandon the GPL, which makes software non-free, and adopt truly free licenses which do not restrict the creation of derivative works. Saint Ig-GNU-cius is no saint at all, and this shows it.
--Brett Glass
It's Richard Stallman's brand for his growing hoard of software -- all licensed so that he has control of what happens to it and can use it as a weapon against commercial programmers' livelihoods. It should be as deplored in our space as any other brand or logo.
As part of the General Public License (GPL, also known as "copylefting"), the user had to also agree not to impose licensing restrictions on others. Furthermore, all enhancements to the code -- and even code that intermingled cooperatively developed software with that developed separately -- had to be licensed on the same terms. It is these contractual terms that distinguish open source software from shareware....
The author makes three key mistakes in the above. First, he states that the "copyleft" terms of the GPL are a defining characteristic of open source software -- which they are not. The BSD and MIT X licenses do not encumber programs with the onerous requirement to give away one's work when one uses the code, and both are open source.
In fact, a strong argument can be made that because the GPL discriminates against a field of endeavor -- the creation of commercial software -- by denying the use of code to authors of closed source programs, it does not qualify as an "open source" license as defined by the "Open Source Definition" posted at http://www.opensource.org. So, the BSD license, the MIT X license, and the Artistic License -- the licenses used for Sendmail, Apache, BIND, etc. -- are open source licenses, but the GPL is not. The author fails to note this.
Second, it is not true that the GPL requires authors of derivative works "not to impose licensing restrictions on others." In fact, it requires that licensing restrictions be imposed -- the very onerous restrictions which are part of the GPL itself. The author of a derivative work is even required to attach the "preamble" of the GPL -- a political manifesto -- to his own work.
Finally, the author mistakenly states that the GPL is not "viral." In fact, it is viral, in that a single line of GPLed code can "contaminate" a much larger work and force it to be licensed under the GPL. Apparently, the author has bought the rhetoric of the FSF uncritically and failed to note this.
In short, the GPL not only fails the test for an "open source" license, but also places onerous restrictions upon the code. This is intentional. It is Stallman's explicit intent, as described on the FSF Web site, that GPLed code transform open source into a weapon against the interests of commercial software developers. This intent is not noted in the text and should be.
--Brett Glass
--Brett Glass
The fact is that the FSF is an empire. It's not selfless; in fact, it's extremely greedy. And deceptive. Not only has it claimed millions of dollars' worth of code as its own (while at the same time calling itself a "charity"), but it is not truthful about its goals. The FSF is, in fact, one of the businesses seeking to "stomp" on you as a programmer.
You mention in your message above that you believe that you can license code under the GPL and also make money by relicensing the same code for commercial use. The FSF says this as a way of persuading the gullible to stamp the GPL onto their code. But once they do so, they find that they can no longer make any money from their work! Here's why.
First, when the GPLed code is released, the author will doubtless receive suggested changes and improvements -- often in the form of code. The problem is that, since the initial code was licensed under the GPL, the code which is contributed back is generally licensed under the GPL.
This creates problems for the original author. If he accepts a single contribution which is not signed over to him so that he may license it commercially, his whole work is irrevocably licensed ONLY under the GPL and his ability to legally dual-license goes away.
What if the author refuses to accept the changes to avoid this? In this case, a second mechanism kicks in. The contributor -- or anyone else -- can fork the project to create a GPL-only work that competes directly with the author's and drives him out of business.
Finally, dual licensing does not work because only a very un-savvy businessman would license code for money when there's a GPLed version available. This is true for two reasons. First, the existence of the GPLed version effectively reduces the market value of its functionality to zero; anyone can get that functionality for free! Thus, if one pays money to license GPLed code, one is paying for something which has no market value to end users. This puts the commercial developer "in the hole" from the start. Second, the GPL provides for a few "loopholes" which allow the author's potential licensees to use the code without licensing it. (For example, some vendors of print drivers for UNIX invoke GNU Ghostscript but then post-process the output through their own software after that. They don't change GhostScript itself.) So, in many cases, they have no need to license the GPLed code, and the author loses.
In your message above, you also mention that you remember with fondness the days when you could use code from magazines in your own work. It's unfortunate that you can't do this with GPLed code, because it would force you to forfeit the fruits of your own labor. But luckily, there's another rich source of code that isn't encumbered by the GPL: NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and many other BSD-licensed and MIT X-licensed programs. If you truly wish to realize your ideals, you should be contributing to this base of software, which is REALLY free, rather than adding to the FSF's arsenal.
--Brett Glass
Well, it "sounds like" you don't know what you're talking about.
John Ousterhout is the creator of Tcl and the CEO of Scriptics. Tcl is open source; in fact, it's licensed under a BSD-style license, not the mean-spritied GPL.
Stallman branded Ousterhout a "parasite" despite his generosity and openness because he dares (horrors!) to sell Tcl books, development tools, and other related products.
This would be the definition of a parasite.
To Stallman, a "parasite" is anyone who does not give Stallman what he wants.
You seem to be of the position of the befuddled businessman who doesn't understand the reasoning behind the GPL, the FSF, and RMS.
You obviously have no idea who I am -- and, again, are completely off base. From the above, it appears that you may not understand these things. Their purpose is to attack and hurt programmers, or in fact anyone who wants to make a living via the creation of intellectual property.
I don't understand the need to to profit for profit sake, nor do I understand the drive to "have it all" -
Well, Stallman's drive appears to be to wipe out all commercial software vendors while the FSF controls all of the software that remains -- that is, to "have it all."
--Brett Glass