Like the man said before, programmers using the GPL *are* asking for compensation, it's just that the compensation is not monetary. Can you not get that through your thick fucking skull?
Let's examine these remarks (except for that last question there, which is clearly meant to be inflammatory.) We know that programmers who release code under the GPL can't be expecting any monetary compensation, since the GPL works very well to preclude that. So, what sort(s) of non-monetary compensation would someone who opted for the GPL over the BSD or Artistic License want? Let's see:
1. To feel good about doing the maximum good for one's fellow programmers? Nope; if this were so, there'd be no reason to opt for the GPL over the BSD license. In fact, the code would be more available and see more widespread use under a non-GPL license.
2. To get credit and respect from other programmers? Nope; there's nothing about the GPL that ensures that the programmer will get any more recognition than if he or she had published under another license. In fact, the GPL can prevent the programmer from getting recognition, since he cannot insist upon being credited for his work in documentation or advertising. (The original BSD license specifically required this.) Furthermore, if the programmer contributes to one of the FSF's "GNU" projects, the situation is even worse. He or she must sign over all rights to the code; it bears the FSF's copyright, not his.
This leaves only one thing:
3. To prevent the code from being used by programmers who publish commercial and/or closed source software.
Bingo.
But this is an odd form of "compensation" indeed, as the programmer does not benefit from it. In fact, he hurts his profession by undermining software companies' ability to benefit from published source code -- potentially depriving himself of a job in the future.
So, the only way for our programmer to derive non-monetary compensation from the use of the GPL rather than one of the other licenses is if he or she derives satisfaction from creating handicaps for businesses which could potentially produce good, creative work. At the same time, he must derive joy from hurting his profession and his own job prospects. This is a perverse sort of pleasure indeed!
Worse still, the GPL drives a wedge between open source and closed source when they should be synergistic. (Those who publish closed source will be less inclined to open it because they are not able to benefit from as much open source -- and because they see open source as hostile to their interests.) This is not something in which I think one should take pleasure.
I do not agree with the ideals of business. It's selfish, profiteering, and soulless.
It seems to me that this is rather a sweeping condemnation. What about the many good and ethical businesspeople out there? Or, in fact, all of the individuals out there? (In the most basic sense, each one of us is really a business comprised of a single worker.)
One of the greatest deceptions of the Free Software Foundation is that it goads adherents into attacking "business" as if it were the enemy. But ironically, as Pogo Possum once put it, "I have seen the enemy, and he is us!"
The GPL creates conflicts by setting one programmer against another. And only the FSF wins.
As I outlined in another Slashdot post, the GPL differs significantly from all other shrinkwrap licenses. Nearly all shrinkwraps attempt to constrain use; the GPL constrains copying.
Actually, both types of licenses constrain both use and copying. The shrinkwrap license constrains when, where, and how you can run the software and also generally prohibits you from making copies. The GPL attempts to constrain the ways in which you can use the source on which it has been stamped for your own purposes -- in particular, in code you write for a living. It also prevents you from making copies in some cases and demands that you make copies in others.
The GPL is, ironically, longer and more complex than most shrinkwrap licenses. Worse still, it is deceptive. It implements an intentionally veiled agenda: the destruction of commercial software businesses. (The "preamble" to the license makes misleading claims about its goals which are belied by Stallman's writings and public statements.)
The GPL is a way for the Lynx programmers, in your words, "to be fairly compensated for their (orig. 'our') hard work."
Not so. In fact, by stamping the GPL onto their code, they have forfeited any hope of compensation for their efforts. They have done so by reducing the market value of their work to zero (users will not pay for the functionality, because they can obtain it for free) and eliminating any opportunity to do parallel commercial licensing. (They don't own changes introduced by others, and so cannot license the latest version for money.)
I don't spite, nor begrudge my colleagues, Brett.
It appears that you do. By supporting the GPL, you are supporting a mechanism of spite and malice. You may not recognize that this is so -- possibly due to the misleading rhetoric which accompanies the license. But the fact remains that the purpose of the GPL is designed to deprive programmers of their livelihoods and destroy their businesses.
Rather, I say, use what works for you. You, on the other hand, *DO* begrudge any and all who use the GPL.
I do not "begrudge" them anything -- rather, I point out that their actions are harmful and they therefore should stop. By adopting the GPL -- either without realizing its effects or because they desire to be malicious -- they hurt people. They further sow the seeds of conflicts such as the one we see here between the GPL zealots and Corel.
You insist that all people coding open source software release it in a way *YOU* can take and make money on.
Not so. Your statement above is replete with loaded and misleading language.
In fact, I advocate the release of open source software in such a way that anyone can build on it, advance the state of the art, and avoid needless duplication of effort. Since the source has been published, it cannot be "taken" -- it's still out there. And any profit which is made on a derivative work will stem solely from an author's improvements, since the original functionality is available for free. The creator of the derivative work is not making money "on" the original; he or she is merely saving tedious and redundant coding by incorporating code which no longer has market value.
Anyone can do this -- not just me in particular, but the whole world. The benefits are tremendous. The Internet exists today in its current form because the Berkeley TCP/IP stack was available to all comers -- open source, closed source, commercial, or non-commercial.
This entire discussion is, alas, an example of the conflict that the misleading rhetoric of the GPL creates. The FSF's rhetoric appears to have created in you such hostility toward alternatives to the GPL -- or even toward recognizing its true agenda -- that you are flaming me and refusing to see the big picture.
This, alas, is what the GPL attempts to do. In his essay, "Why Software Should Not Have Owners," Richard Stallman actually encourages employees to integrate GPLed code into the company's product, so as to force it to release all of its source code. This "monkey wrenching" is not sharing; it's an attempt to use a license -- and the might of the government -- to literally confiscate the company's code. Which is what Stallman, and the FSF, have always intended the GPL to do. In his many essays, Stallman uses the word "free" in the same way as revolutionaries in a third world country:
Revolutionary #1: We have 'liberated' this evil person's car, house, and food for the benefit of the Revolution. He was hoarding them, which is an affront against the People.
Revolutionary #2: Yes, these things are now Free! Long live the Revolution! Oh, and pass me another turkey leg....
In short, Richard Stallman believes that it is legitimate to confiscate intellectual property to benefit the organization which he controls: the FSF. The GPL is the instrument via which, he believes, he can harness government power to do this.
What is real sharing? Well, for one thing, true sharing is always speculative. When one shares, one recognizes the a possibility that that the other person might not reciprocate. But this is part and parcel of sharing.
Insisting that the other person give up his or her livelihood (which is the effect of forcing a professional programmer to release source without compensation) is not sharing; it is confiscation.
GPLed software is not commercial, because those who sell copies of it (e.g. Red Hat) do not own it and do not have the ability to license it. What you are paying for, when you buy Red Hat Linux, is the plastic disk, the box, the manual, the support. You are not buying a license to use the software. It is not Red Hat's to license!
To say that Red Hat Linux, and other distributions of Linux which are published by companies like Red Hat, are "commercial" is intentionally misleading. It is part of Richard Stallman's rhetoric, and is an attempt disguise the anti-business mechanisms of the GPL. (Richard Stallman endorses a strategy which he calls "pragmatic idealism" -- i.e. "The end justifies the means." Alas, he appears to condone the use of deceptive rhetoric so long as it furthers his ultimate cause: the destruction of truly commercial software.) In fact, the GPL is anti-commercial.
Which is precisely why license "agreements" of any kind are not only monsterously unethical, they are stupid.
Good point, Leo. However, this begs the question: is any license which comes attached to a product and unilaterally imposes onerous requirements upon someone who uses it for a particular purpose likewise "monstrously unethical?"
If so, it is possible to argue that the GPL, too, is monstrously unethical. Like the shrinkwrap license, it unilaterally imposes serious (and possibly unenforceable; we don't know yet) restrictions. Just like a spreadsheet license which said that the software vendor owned all the data you processed with the spreadsheet, the GPL stakes a claim upon the code of developers who wish to reuse code and avoid reimplementing the wheel. It is, in some fact, worse than the shrinkwrap license, in that shrinkwrap licenses are not (at least in any situation I've seen) "viral."
I think that the real cause of conflict in this situation is, in fact, the GPL.
Unfortunately, Ben, the GPL is doing a great deal of damage -- to programmers' livelihoods, to markets, to end users, and to the relationship between open source and closed source.
Thus, while it might be nice to sit idly by, we must do more. If we care about what our world will be like in the future, it is insufficient to "go away" or "just not use the GPL." Instead, we must take action to dissuade programmers from using the GPL and to help them see through the deceptive rhetoric which Richard Stallman uses to promote it. We must actively free code from the GPL by any means possible. (It's a shame that it is necessary to expend the enerty to do this, but we may not be able to rid ourselves of the scourge in any other way.) If necessary, we may have to have the GPL's onerous "copyleft" provisions ruled invalid by a court of law (though I would hope that this is not necessary; lawsuits consume time, money, and energy and create conflict).
The GPL destroys markets, retards programmers' progress by forcing them to reimplement the wheel needlessly, and hurts livelihoods. In the case of the browser project for the blind to which you allude above, licensing problems (including the presence of the GPL on much of the code in Lynx) has caused our group to reimplement and re-test code needlessly. No good comes of this -- only harm which would have been avoidable were it not for the GPL. We'd be much closer to the finish line -- and those blind users would be much closer to having a good browser -- were it not for the GPL and for attitudes such as the ones you express above. I am not sure why you seem to be spoiling for conflict, but I, personally, am not. I want to build, to share, and to give back. Our group's goal is not to make "lots of money" but merely to be fairly compensated for our hard work. If you begrudge this to your colleagues, you are being spiteful and destructive -- for no good reason. This is what we should eliminate: the conflict and the spite. And this is why we should eschew the GPL, which was designed to embody these things.
Businesses have to realize that free software is something we share with them.
There's no conflict between this notion and that of moving to a license which is not antagonistic to business.
"Sharing" does not mean demanding something unreasonable in return -- which is, alas, what the GPL does. "Sharing" must be done willingly. If you start by demanding things in return, you are not sharing; you are negotiating a transaction. You are being adversarial, not cooperative.
And, yes, individuals and businesses will and do give back, as has been shown in every open source software project which uses a license other than the GPL. Why? Because it is in their interest to do so. Who wants to maintain thousands of tiny enhancements through different versions of an open source program? The only thing which businesses will keep private -- and they are justified in doing so! -- are major creative works for which they deserve the chance to be compensated. So, things sort themselves out properly without the need for undue restrictions -- or for lawsuits.
Self-interest is a far stronger and more pleasant motivator than any license.
My comments weren't at all posted as flamebait. My goal in posting here is, in fact, to head off conflict -- the conflict we are sure to see as a result of the problematic provisions of the GPL. Our world is tumultous and chaotic enough; the last thing we need is to divide programmers into multiple warring camps.
Alas, the FSF seems eager to do this. Via the GPL, it attempts to turn code into a weapon and set up a battle -- open source vs. closed source -- which need not be. The two can, and should, coexist gracefully and complement one another.
The only way that this can happen, however, is if we eliminate licenses with so-called "copyleft" provisions. These provisions truly do discriminate against the creation of software which does not happen to be open source. This is a field of endeavor -- in fact, a whole industry. By discriminating against it the GPL truly does violate the Open Source Definition. What's more, as I've mentioned earlier, "copyleft" restrictions are almost certein be ruled unenforceable by any court, because by agreeing to them one is making a contract to make a contract (in fact, to make many contracts).
The problematic provisions of the GPL stem from author Richard Stallman's having declared war on the very concept of intellectual property -- the coin of the realm in the electronic age. But no one bemefits from war. What we need instead is a positive, cooperative, synergetic relationship between open source -- truly open source -- and closed source. Between free sharing and the fundamental needs of creative people to be compensated for their work. The incident we see here is just one of the many possible problems we can avoid if we return to the classic, unencumbered form of open source that was pioneered at MIT and Berkeley long before the GPL.
I don't like debating licenses either. However, we must face facts: licensing is the root of the problem here. The only way to resolve this conflict -- and many others past, present, and future -- is to adopt a license which admits itself to fewer conflicts.
Any license which requires a developer to give up the value of his work in order to adapt or adopt freely available open source will inevitably cause friction between authors of open source and those who publish software for a living. The LGPL, which you mention above, is far less extreme than the GPL in terms of what it demands. However, because it still attempts to appropriate the work of others (some would say "confiscate," though I think the term is a bit strong), it is problematic and subject to serious legal questions. And these questions will cause court battles. (I don't want to go into this in great depth here, but the most serious problem with a license that requires disclosure of modifications under the same license is that it is a "contract to execute a contract," which -- according to basic contract law -- is per se unenforceable.)
I do not believe that many people are really so spiteful that they would withhold their code altogether, as you suggest above, just because someone else could use it to construct his or her own product. Apache -- which with 50%+ market share is arguably the most successful open source project of all -- has no problems obtaining code. And it uses the most liberal open source license of all -- in fact, it's a hair's breadth away from putting the code in the public domain.
We will all have the opportunity to prosper as the base of code that's truly free grows. While Stallman, and others, attempt to fan the flames of petty jealousy, I am inclined to believe that most people will be able to see past this appeal to childish spite and pettiness and recognize that it hurts rather than helps. I believe that all programmers will ultimately come to recognize the benefits of universally reusable open source -- code with no strings attached. Let's start now by consigning the GPL to history and moving on.
The GPL, by its very nature, creates conflicts between open source developers and honest businesses -- large and small -- by putting them at odds with one another. It doesn't take more than a few minutes' reading at the FSF Web site -- in which Stallman repeatedly issues a call to arms against "proprietary" software (i.e. software which one can make money by licensing) to see the antagonism. (His essay in which he renames the Library GPL the "Lesser GPL" is an especially good example of this attitude.) A movement whose focus is the destruction of people's businesses and livelihoods can only lead to a battle -- no, rather, to a war consisting of many battles and many casualties.
Everyone -- businesses and the open source community -- would be better off if we adopted the win/win, "live and let livee" approach of other software licenses, such as the BSD license, the MIT X license, and the Artistic License.
Open source that's reusable by all -- such as the BSD TCP/IP stack -- is responsible for the growth of the Internet and the success of the World Wide Web. Instead of threatening lawsuits based on overly restrictive licenses such as the GPL, we should say, "Use this code as you will. You can't un-publish what's already been published for the world to see, so you can't 'take' it; you can only use it to avoid tediously reinventing the wheel. Now, let's see what you can do wih it! If you do not choose to publish the source to what you build with it, good luck to you -- it's not easy to make a living that way. If you are good enough to do it you deserve success."
Bruce, in the past you have had the strength and foresight to opt out of movements and groups which have become dogmatic and/or territorial. Perhaps it is time to reconsider your support of the GPL.
It seems that the only thing that the GPL has done which less restrictive licenses have not is to alienate and hurt people. (The GPL hasn't "forced" the opening of any code; people who don't want to publish their source, such as Be, have merely worked around it or reimplemented the algorithms themselves.) It even appears to violate Point 6 of the Open Source Definition -- which you helped to write! -- by discriminating against a field of endeavor: the creation of software which does not happen to be open source.
I realize that this would be a bold move, to be sure, but you're one of the few people I've encountered who has the guts to make it. Let's end the conflict, the bitterness, and the spite. It's time to get on with writing software, and to publish it in a way that quells conflicts rather than creating them. We will all be more productive, and happier, if we do.
Corel embraced Linux without realizing that the GPL, under which Linux is licensed, was motivated not by a true spirit of openness and sharing but rather by bitterness and spite. The targets: business, entrepreneurship, and programmers who desired to make a fair living from their work. Contrary to the FSF's attempts at PR "spin," this has always been the agenda of Richard Stallman and many othe promoters of this license.
Corel, which is now finding itself attacked at every turn by the GPL "faithful," should now recognize that it jumped on the Linux bandwagon too hastily. Because Corel is a commercial software developer, the GPL is not its friend but rather its enemy, and is in fact designed to destroy it. (The GPL does not even conform to the "Open Source Definition," as it discriminates against Corel's field of endeavor: the creation and publication of commercial software.)
Hopefully, Corel will be smart enough to do an about-face and promote software which is not encumbered by the GPL's "poison pill" provisions. I'd recommend OpenBSD, since it is not only perhaps the world's most secure OS but also a Canadian product which makes better use of encryption than an exportable American product could.
And if I release my code, the GPL ensures I get paid in at least one way, in that I get to see what others do to my code. Under BSD, anyone can take my work and make it "their" work.
Not true. The work is still yours. You have licensed it very freely, but it is still your property. What's more, under the full, four-clause BSD license, you can insist that you be given credit when it is used. Or, if you aren't worried about getting credit, you can remove that clause.
Earlier in the thread was an interesting argument:
Oh, you wish to own their code. Thanks for your gift, it makes it so meaningful now.
Right. I want to own their code -just as much as they own mine-. Under the GPL, my code is mine, their code is theirs.
Not so. The GPL says, "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is also mine."
It's ironic: Richard Stallman often labels authors of closed source programs as "hoarders." But in fact, the FSF and GNU projects hoard code under their own copyright. (They will not accept any contribution of code unless the author gives up all rights to it and assigns them to the FSF).
By contrast, the author of a closed source program must license it in order to make money. No, he doesn't have to reveal the source, but if he does not at least allow others to use it for a reasonable price, no one will patronize his business and he will not make a living.
So, in fact, the FSF and the GPL are the "hoarders," not the programmer who wishes to avoid needlessly reinventing the wheel.
...to dictate what lawful activities a person may or may not engage in for a living? To do so is both unethical and destructive.
Very few -- if any -- small software vendors have any illusion that they'll become the next Microsoft. However, they do deserve to be paid for the use of their work, just as do artists, musicians, and authors.
Everyone can use my code under the GPL as well. They just have to let everyone see what they did.
No; they must do more. According to the GPL, they must make it available to all and sundry for free, sacrificing any compensation they might have hoped to get for their creative efforts. This effectively prohibits them from using your code in any product they hope to sell for money.
Worse still, the people who will be most hurt by this are small developers who don't have the time or money to reimplement what you did on their own. Big companies, such as Microsoft, don't need your code; they can hire armies of programmers to create their own. But the little guy, who might challenge Microsoft if only he could add his unique value instead of redoing what's already been done, is out in the cold.
In short, by using the GPL, you're hurting exactly the person you most probably would most want to help.
Labor is scarce, information is not. Making copies scarce in order to charge for them is a mind-bogglingly inappropriate way to be paid for writing software, and demands the sort of secrecy that's kept the industry near Square One.
The GPL makes code scarce by preventing it from being shared with your fellow developers. Not everyone can afford to give away all of the fruits of his or her labor (which, as you yourself say, is scarce) for free. Do not attempt to force them to do so! Give them your code via a truly free open source license, such as the BSD license, and they will have the wherewithal to give back. Hoard your code from them -- by licensing it under the GPL -- and they will not be able to do so.
Placing code under the GPL sets its market value to the end user at zero. That is to say, because the end user can obtain its functionality for free, he will not pay any money for it.
Therefore, the appropriate price to pay to license GPLed code is zero.
If a developer pays a nonzero amount to license the code, he is digging himself into a hole, as that cost can never be recovered.
This is part of the "monkey wrenching" effect of the GPL. Some advocates of the GPL often say, "Just go to the original author and license the code." However, they ignore the fact that (a) Many authors of GPLed code share Stallman's anti-business ideology and will not do so; and (b) Because the code has zero market value, licensing it is a dead loss.
Finally, it is often impossible to license GPLed code because it is not possible to establish authorship.
These mechanisms reinforce the intended effect of the GPL: to destroy programmers' businesses, markets, and livelihoods.
The problem with just running the Linux stuff is that thee entire development cycle, and the finished code, would be dependent upon Linux libraries and compatibility modules. This is not desirable.
Long ago, Borland became dependent on Microsoft (and exposed itself to great harm) because it only developed for what seemed to be the most popular platform: Windows. Hopefully, it will not repeat the same mistake in the UNIX space by developing only for Linux! Diversification is important in any investment -- and especially so when in software development.
Michael: while you're working on that TForm/TButton Linux app, could you possibly arrange to provide a command line compiler which can create native FreeBSD binaries? (FreeBSD has a Linux emulator, so the compiler can cross-compile itself. The GUI stuff will follow easily, because XFree86 is the same on both systems.) I've done contract work for Borland before -- as far back as 1985 (Turbo Pascal Tutor, Turbo Editor Toolbox, Turbo Communications Toolbox, IBM VCO Toolbox) and as recently as the first version of Delphi. I'll gladly do the port for you.
One need not speculate about Stallman's motives; he is very open about them. He believes very strongly that the very notion of intellectual property is "evil" and "immoral" (his own words). He further believes that this absolute "truth" justifies any action which deprives authors, programmers, and inventors of that property and/or of the rewards they might gain from producing it.
This is why, while the BSD license (and other similar licenses) allow programmers to stand on one another's shoulders and be rewarded for their efforts, the GPL intentionally handicaps any programmer who seeks to be justly rewarded for his creative work.
The fact that you claim that my correct accounts of Stallman's motives "border on slander" indicates that you may have been deceived by the rhetoric on the FSF's Web site, which has been intentionally crafted to hide those motives.
Here's an interesting case in point. About a year ago, I pointed out on a public mailing list some text on the FSF site in which Richard's anti-business motives were clearly evident. What did Richard do? He elided the text, leaving no evidence that it had ever been there. Sort of Big Brotherish.
Sorry, but you are incorrect about our communications skills. We communicate for a living, and I daresay that we do it quite well.
At the Robix booth, we were very polite, and asked lots of intelligent questions. The utter change of attitude we saw when we asked about drivers for UNIX was quite a surprise. (And, no, we did NOT insist that the company give its code away for free. We're not GPL zealots.)
The above message appears to be intended as an ad hominem attack on me personally as well as an unwarranted attack on the BSDs. Perhaps that's why the poster posted as "Anonymous Coward."
--Brett Glass
I agree that it's sad, but it is also true.
on
FreeBSD at COMDEX
·
· Score: 1
Brett, it's really hard to put into words just how sad and pitiful a statement that is. Are you really that cynical?
To which statement do you refer? I made several statements above, though they were related.
None of them, however, were made in a spirit of cynicism. Rather, they point out what's really so -- what one can see when one cuts through the rhetoric and examines the intended and actual effects of the GPL. I've thought long and hard about these issues, listened to many people. My comments above are a distillation of some of my observations.
I beg to differ with you. My work on Linux has been totally, 100% motivated by wanting to contribute to a greater good. A community work. And many, many of my peers and friends (many of whom I know in RL) function similarily.
It sounds as if your intentions are very good -- and I respect them. However, the actual effects of your work may not be to contribute as much to a greater good as you would like. The GPL has a negative impact, as does the generation of new code which is licensed under it. If you truly want to do the most good for the world, you should license your code under a license which does not contain the GPL's anti-business, anti-programmer, anti-advancement "poison pill." I'd love to see you contribute to one of the BSDs (NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, or PicoBSD), or to Apache, or to XFree86, or to BIND.
We're helping to build a better world. At least, that's how we feel. How sad that you don't feel the same!
Unfortunately, Richard Stallman's writings are designed to encourage people to feel as if they are helping to build a better world, when in fact they are furthering Richard's personal agenda of spite against commercial softare development. This is, indeed, a sad situation! Again, you can truly benefit all of us by contributing to projects which consist of code that is released under a different license.
I hope not all of the BSD developers are as disillusioned as you seem to be.
I'm not "disillusioned;" rather, over time I have come to see through the illusion projected by Stallman and the "Free Software Foundation" (which, in fact, captures software so that Stallman can use it as a weapon rather than making it free for all to use).
And as for the GPL's supposed roots in "spite and jealousy" as you portray... I don't purport to speak for RMS. I've never met the man in RL.
You should -- or should at least listen to tapes of his speeches and/or read transcripts of them.
When Richard is speaking to individuals, or when he speaks before a group which he considers to be receptive to it, he reveals his true agenda: one of spite against those who make money via software or in fact any form of intellectual property. Engage him sufficiently, and he will assert bluntly that the GPL is designed to sabotage the efforts of anyone who wishes to reap rewards via such creative work.
But you know what? He's irrelivent. The GPL is being used as a tool for the greater good, a way to contribute to a project much larger than the sum of the individuals working on it, while still having some sense of security that the community project cannot be stolen.
Again, the concept that there is a "community" is a sham. Each contributor is an individual with his or her own goals and motivations. Re-using and building upon open source is no more "stealing" from a community than is using information one has gleaned from a library book to make money.
The GPL is independant of its creator.
So, in that sense, is a computer virus. But, like the virus, the GPL does great harm.
The analogy goes further. A virus is often spread via deception or stealth. Likewise, the GPL is made to appear harmless via the language in its "preamble." (How many licenses of any kind do you know of that have a "preamble?" The sole purpose of the one that's attached to the GPL is to deceive users and developers about the license's true purpose.) Stallman, in his essay "Why Software Should Not Have Owners," urges programmers to "infect" their employers' software with the GPL so as to sabotage their attempts to make money from their hard work.
I as a developer want to contribute to this community project, and I want assurence that our work will not be stolen and incorperated into someone else's project, enhanced, and kept proprietary.
This contradicts your assertion, earlier, that you would like your code to do the maximum possible good. In order to maximize the benefits which people may derive from your code, you must allow them to use it for any purpose.
I want assurence that ALL derivatives of our work are kept Free - and that means the source MUST be available. The GPL provides this, the BSD licence(s) does(do) not.
This is a warped definition of "free," as indicated by the capitalization. It is, alas, part of Stallman's rhetoric and dogma.
Stallman's deceptive agenda relies on an old rhetorical technique called a "pivot word" -- a shift, within a given context, from one meaning of a word to another. In this case, the shift is from the meaning "without cost" to the anthropomorphic meaning "free to do what it will" -- a meaning which cannot be applied to code because it is not a sentient being.
You want to know what I really think? Based on what I've read from you, I think you're a small-minded, petty man that is incapable of contributing to a project without baking his ego into it, and so equally incapable of conceiving of a world in which people donate -freely!- their hard work and time to selflessly advance a community project.
Either that, or you're so threatened by the sheer power of a group of community-minded, motivated developers that you blindly lash out at them. A dinosaur being overrun by a horde of mammals.
How sad for you in either case!
And how truly sad that you appear to have sunk to a level when you no longer argue the individual points of an opinion; you resort to repeating yourself over and over. You know what that is Brett? DOGMA.
The above is a combination of an ad hominem attack and a repetition of Stallman's rhetoric and dogma. It does not advance your argument.
Again, if you really do espouse the goals you state above -- to maximize the good you do for others and to contribute to software projects which do so -- you will, I hope, see through Stallman's smokescreen and eschew the GPL.
There are many projects out there which are truly open source (the GPL violates at least one and probably two of the points of the Open Source Definition), and produce truly unencumbered software. They could use your help.
PicoBSD (http://www.freebsd.org/~picobsd/), which is probably your best choice, has an API very similar to that of Linux. You can probably port right over to it with very little effort and minimal slippage in your schedule. With PicoBSD, open source licensing issues go away, because it does not impose upon you an unreasonable obligation to forfeit the value of your hard work.
Cygnus' eCOS is another option, though it would require more porting effort. Cygnus -- which started out as a company that supported GPLed software exclusively -- recognized that the GPL was inappropriate for embedded operating systems, and drafted a license which allowed developers such as yourself to use it without giving away the farm.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's examine these remarks (except for that last question there, which is clearly meant to be inflammatory.) We know that programmers who release code under the GPL can't be expecting any monetary compensation, since the GPL works very well to preclude that. So, what sort(s) of non-monetary compensation would someone who opted for the GPL over the BSD or Artistic License want? Let's see:
1. To feel good about doing the maximum good for one's fellow programmers? Nope; if this were so, there'd be no reason to opt for the GPL over the BSD license. In fact, the code would be more available and see more widespread use under a non-GPL license.
2. To get credit and respect from other programmers? Nope; there's nothing about the GPL that ensures that the programmer will get any more recognition than if he or she had published under another license. In fact, the GPL can prevent the programmer from getting recognition, since he cannot insist upon being credited for his work in documentation or advertising. (The original BSD license specifically required this.) Furthermore, if the programmer contributes to one of the FSF's "GNU" projects, the situation is even worse. He or she must sign over all rights to the code; it bears the FSF's copyright, not his.
This leaves only one thing:
3. To prevent the code from being used by programmers who publish commercial and/or closed source software.
Bingo.
But this is an odd form of "compensation" indeed, as the programmer does not benefit from it. In fact, he hurts his profession by undermining software companies' ability to benefit from published source code -- potentially depriving himself of a job in the future.
So, the only way for our programmer to derive non-monetary compensation from the use of the GPL rather than one of the other licenses is if he or she derives satisfaction from creating handicaps for businesses which could potentially produce good, creative work. At the same time, he must derive joy from hurting his profession and his own job prospects. This is a perverse sort of pleasure indeed!
Worse still, the GPL drives a wedge between open source and closed source when they should be synergistic. (Those who publish closed source will be less inclined to open it because they are not able to benefit from as much open source -- and because they see open source as hostile to their interests.) This is not something in which I think one should take pleasure.
--Brett Glass
It seems to me that this is rather a sweeping condemnation. What about the many good and ethical businesspeople out there? Or, in fact, all of the individuals out there? (In the most basic sense, each one of us is really a business comprised of a single worker.)
One of the greatest deceptions of the Free Software Foundation is that it goads adherents into attacking "business" as if it were the enemy. But ironically, as Pogo Possum once put it, "I have seen the enemy, and he is us!"
The GPL creates conflicts by setting one programmer against another. And only the FSF wins.
--Brett
Actually, both types of licenses constrain both use and copying. The shrinkwrap license constrains when, where, and how you can run the software and also generally prohibits you from making copies. The GPL attempts to constrain the ways in which you can use the source on which it has been stamped for your own purposes -- in particular, in code you write for a living. It also prevents you from making copies in some cases and demands that you make copies in others.
The GPL is, ironically, longer and more complex than most shrinkwrap licenses. Worse still, it is deceptive. It implements an intentionally veiled agenda: the destruction of commercial software businesses. (The "preamble" to the license makes misleading claims about its goals which are belied by Stallman's writings and public statements.)
--Brett
Not so. In fact, by stamping the GPL onto their code, they have forfeited any hope of compensation for their efforts. They have done so by reducing the market value of their work to zero (users will not pay for the functionality, because they can obtain it for free) and eliminating any opportunity to do parallel commercial licensing. (They don't own changes introduced by others, and so cannot license the latest version for money.)
I don't spite, nor begrudge my colleagues, Brett.
It appears that you do. By supporting the GPL, you are supporting a mechanism of spite and malice. You may not recognize that this is so -- possibly due to the misleading rhetoric which accompanies the license. But the fact remains that the purpose of the GPL is designed to deprive programmers of their livelihoods and destroy their businesses.
Rather, I say, use what works for you. You, on the other hand, *DO* begrudge any and all who use the GPL.
I do not "begrudge" them anything -- rather, I point out that their actions are harmful and they therefore should stop. By adopting the GPL -- either without realizing its effects or because they desire to be malicious -- they hurt people. They further sow the seeds of conflicts such as the one we see here between the GPL zealots and Corel.
You insist that all people coding open source software release it in a way *YOU* can take and make money on.
Not so. Your statement above is replete with loaded and misleading language.
In fact, I advocate the release of open source software in such a way that anyone can build on it, advance the state of the art, and avoid needless duplication of effort. Since the source has been published, it cannot be "taken" -- it's still out there. And any profit which is made on a derivative work will stem solely from an author's improvements, since the original functionality is available for free. The creator of the derivative work is not making money "on" the original; he or she is merely saving tedious and redundant coding by incorporating code which no longer has market value.
Anyone can do this -- not just me in particular, but the whole world. The benefits are tremendous. The Internet exists today in its current form because the Berkeley TCP/IP stack was available to all comers -- open source, closed source, commercial, or non-commercial.
This entire discussion is, alas, an example of the conflict that the misleading rhetoric of the GPL creates. The FSF's rhetoric appears to have created in you such hostility toward alternatives to the GPL -- or even toward recognizing its true agenda -- that you are flaming me and refusing to see the big picture.
--Brett Glass
Revolutionary #1: We have 'liberated' this evil person's car, house, and food for the benefit of the Revolution. He was hoarding them, which is an affront against the People.
Revolutionary #2: Yes, these things are now Free! Long live the Revolution! Oh, and pass me another turkey leg....
In short, Richard Stallman believes that it is legitimate to confiscate intellectual property to benefit the organization which he controls: the FSF. The GPL is the instrument via which, he believes, he can harness government power to do this.
What is real sharing? Well, for one thing, true sharing is always speculative. When one shares, one recognizes the a possibility that that the other person might not reciprocate. But this is part and parcel of sharing.
Insisting that the other person give up his or her livelihood (which is the effect of forcing a professional programmer to release source without compensation) is not sharing; it is confiscation.
--Brett Glass
To say that Red Hat Linux, and other distributions of Linux which are published by companies like Red Hat, are "commercial" is intentionally misleading. It is part of Richard Stallman's rhetoric, and is an attempt disguise the anti-business mechanisms of the GPL. (Richard Stallman endorses a strategy which he calls "pragmatic idealism" -- i.e. "The end justifies the means." Alas, he appears to condone the use of deceptive rhetoric so long as it furthers his ultimate cause: the destruction of truly commercial software.) In fact, the GPL is anti-commercial.
--Brett Glass
Good point, Leo. However, this begs the question: is any license which comes attached to a product and unilaterally imposes onerous requirements upon someone who uses it for a particular purpose likewise "monstrously unethical?"
If so, it is possible to argue that the GPL, too, is monstrously unethical. Like the shrinkwrap license, it unilaterally imposes serious (and possibly unenforceable; we don't know yet) restrictions. Just like a spreadsheet license which said that the software vendor owned all the data you processed with the spreadsheet, the GPL stakes a claim upon the code of developers who wish to reuse code and avoid reimplementing the wheel. It is, in some fact, worse than the shrinkwrap license, in that shrinkwrap licenses are not (at least in any situation I've seen) "viral."
I think that the real cause of conflict in this situation is, in fact, the GPL.
--Brett
Thus, while it might be nice to sit idly by, we must do more. If we care about what our world will be like in the future, it is insufficient to "go away" or "just not use the GPL." Instead, we must take action to dissuade programmers from using the GPL and to help them see through the deceptive rhetoric which Richard Stallman uses to promote it. We must actively free code from the GPL by any means possible. (It's a shame that it is necessary to expend the enerty to do this, but we may not be able to rid ourselves of the scourge in any other way.) If necessary, we may have to have the GPL's onerous "copyleft" provisions ruled invalid by a court of law (though I would hope that this is not necessary; lawsuits consume time, money, and energy and create conflict).
The GPL destroys markets, retards programmers' progress by forcing them to reimplement the wheel needlessly, and hurts livelihoods. In the case of the browser project for the blind to which you allude above, licensing problems (including the presence of the GPL on much of the code in Lynx) has caused our group to reimplement and re-test code needlessly. No good comes of this -- only harm which would have been avoidable were it not for the GPL. We'd be much closer to the finish line -- and those blind users would be much closer to having a good browser -- were it not for the GPL and for attitudes such as the ones you express above. I am not sure why you seem to be spoiling for conflict, but I, personally, am not. I want to build, to share, and to give back. Our group's goal is not to make "lots of money" but merely to be fairly compensated for our hard work. If you begrudge this to your colleagues, you are being spiteful and destructive -- for no good reason. This is what we should eliminate: the conflict and the spite. And this is why we should eschew the GPL, which was designed to embody these things.
--Brett Glass
There's no conflict between this notion and that of moving to a license which is not antagonistic to business.
"Sharing" does not mean demanding something unreasonable in return -- which is, alas, what the GPL does. "Sharing" must be done willingly. If you start by demanding things in return, you are not sharing; you are negotiating a transaction. You are being adversarial, not cooperative.
And, yes, individuals and businesses will and do give back, as has been shown in every open source software project which uses a license other than the GPL. Why? Because it is in their interest to do so. Who wants to maintain thousands of tiny enhancements through different versions of an open source program? The only thing which businesses will keep private -- and they are justified in doing so! -- are major creative works for which they deserve the chance to be compensated. So, things sort themselves out properly without the need for undue restrictions -- or for lawsuits.
Self-interest is a far stronger and more pleasant motivator than any license.
--Brett
Alas, the FSF seems eager to do this. Via the GPL, it attempts to turn code into a weapon and set up a battle -- open source vs. closed source -- which need not be. The two can, and should, coexist gracefully and complement one another.
The only way that this can happen, however, is if we eliminate licenses with so-called "copyleft" provisions. These provisions truly do discriminate against the creation of software which does not happen to be open source. This is a field of endeavor -- in fact, a whole industry. By discriminating against it the GPL truly does violate the Open Source Definition. What's more, as I've mentioned earlier, "copyleft" restrictions are almost certein be ruled unenforceable by any court, because by agreeing to them one is making a contract to make a contract (in fact, to make many contracts).
The problematic provisions of the GPL stem from author Richard Stallman's having declared war on the very concept of intellectual property -- the coin of the realm in the electronic age. But no one bemefits from war. What we need instead is a positive, cooperative, synergetic relationship between open source -- truly open source -- and closed source. Between free sharing and the fundamental needs of creative people to be compensated for their work. The incident we see here is just one of the many possible problems we can avoid if we return to the classic, unencumbered form of open source that was pioneered at MIT and Berkeley long before the GPL.
--Brett Glass
Any license which requires a developer to give up the value of his work in order to adapt or adopt freely available open source will inevitably cause friction between authors of open source and those who publish software for a living. The LGPL, which you mention above, is far less extreme than the GPL in terms of what it demands. However, because it still attempts to appropriate the work of others (some would say "confiscate," though I think the term is a bit strong), it is problematic and subject to serious legal questions. And these questions will cause court battles. (I don't want to go into this in great depth here, but the most serious problem with a license that requires disclosure of modifications under the same license is that it is a "contract to execute a contract," which -- according to basic contract law -- is per se unenforceable.)
I do not believe that many people are really so spiteful that they would withhold their code altogether, as you suggest above, just because someone else could use it to construct his or her own product. Apache -- which with 50%+ market share is arguably the most successful open source project of all -- has no problems obtaining code. And it uses the most liberal open source license of all -- in fact, it's a hair's breadth away from putting the code in the public domain.
We will all have the opportunity to prosper as the base of code that's truly free grows. While Stallman, and others, attempt to fan the flames of petty jealousy, I am inclined to believe that most people will be able to see past this appeal to childish spite and pettiness and recognize that it hurts rather than helps. I believe that all programmers will ultimately come to recognize the benefits of universally reusable open source -- code with no strings attached. Let's start now by consigning the GPL to history and moving on.
--Brett Glass
Everyone -- businesses and the open source community -- would be better off if we adopted the win/win, "live and let livee" approach of other software licenses, such as the BSD license, the MIT X license, and the Artistic License.
Open source that's reusable by all -- such as the BSD TCP/IP stack -- is responsible for the growth of the Internet and the success of the World Wide Web. Instead of threatening lawsuits based on overly restrictive licenses such as the GPL, we should say, "Use this code as you will. You can't un-publish what's already been published for the world to see, so you can't 'take' it; you can only use it to avoid tediously reinventing the wheel. Now, let's see what you can do wih it! If you do not choose to publish the source to what you build with it, good luck to you -- it's not easy to make a living that way. If you are good enough to do it you deserve success."
Bruce, in the past you have had the strength and foresight to opt out of movements and groups which have become dogmatic and/or territorial. Perhaps it is time to reconsider your support of the GPL.
It seems that the only thing that the GPL has done which less restrictive licenses have not is to alienate and hurt people. (The GPL hasn't "forced" the opening of any code; people who don't want to publish their source, such as Be, have merely worked around it or reimplemented the algorithms themselves.) It even appears to violate Point 6 of the Open Source Definition -- which you helped to write! -- by discriminating against a field of endeavor: the creation of software which does not happen to be open source.
I realize that this would be a bold move, to be sure, but you're one of the few people I've encountered who has the guts to make it. Let's end the conflict, the bitterness, and the spite. It's time to get on with writing software, and to publish it in a way that quells conflicts rather than creating them. We will all be more productive, and happier, if we do.
--Brett Glass
Corel, which is now finding itself attacked at every turn by the GPL "faithful," should now recognize that it jumped on the Linux bandwagon too hastily. Because Corel is a commercial software developer, the GPL is not its friend but rather its enemy, and is in fact designed to destroy it. (The GPL does not even conform to the "Open Source Definition," as it discriminates against Corel's field of endeavor: the creation and publication of commercial software.)
Hopefully, Corel will be smart enough to do an about-face and promote software which is not encumbered by the GPL's "poison pill" provisions. I'd recommend OpenBSD, since it is not only perhaps the world's most secure OS but also a Canadian product which makes better use of encryption than an exportable American product could.
--Brett Glass
Not true. The work is still yours. You have licensed it very freely, but it is still your property. What's more, under the full, four-clause BSD license, you can insist that you be given credit when it is used. Or, if you aren't worried about getting credit, you can remove that clause.
Earlier in the thread was an interesting argument:
Oh, you wish to own their code. Thanks for your gift, it makes it so meaningful now.
Right. I want to own their code -just as much as they own mine-. Under the GPL, my code is mine, their code is theirs.
Not so. The GPL says, "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is also mine."
It's ironic: Richard Stallman often labels authors of closed source programs as "hoarders." But in fact, the FSF and GNU projects hoard code under their own copyright. (They will not accept any contribution of code unless the author gives up all rights to it and assigns them to the FSF).
By contrast, the author of a closed source program must license it in order to make money. No, he doesn't have to reveal the source, but if he does not at least allow others to use it for a reasonable price, no one will patronize his business and he will not make a living.
So, in fact, the FSF and the GPL are the "hoarders," not the programmer who wishes to avoid needlessly reinventing the wheel.
--Brett Glass
And by what means would they do this?
--Brett
Very few -- if any -- small software vendors have any illusion that they'll become the next Microsoft. However, they do deserve to be paid for the use of their work, just as do artists, musicians, and authors.
--Brett Glass
No; they must do more. According to the GPL, they must make it available to all and sundry for free, sacrificing any compensation they might have hoped to get for their creative efforts. This effectively prohibits them from using your code in any product they hope to sell for money.
Worse still, the people who will be most hurt by this are small developers who don't have the time or money to reimplement what you did on their own. Big companies, such as Microsoft, don't need your code; they can hire armies of programmers to create their own. But the little guy, who might challenge Microsoft if only he could add his unique value instead of redoing what's already been done, is out in the cold.
In short, by using the GPL, you're hurting exactly the person you most probably would most want to help.
--Brett Glass
The GPL makes code scarce by preventing it from being shared with your fellow developers. Not everyone can afford to give away all of the fruits of his or her labor (which, as you yourself say, is scarce) for free. Do not attempt to force them to do so! Give them your code via a truly free open source license, such as the BSD license, and they will have the wherewithal to give back. Hoard your code from them -- by licensing it under the GPL -- and they will not be able to do so.
--Brett
Therefore, the appropriate price to pay to license GPLed code is zero.
If a developer pays a nonzero amount to license the code, he is digging himself into a hole, as that cost can never be recovered.
This is part of the "monkey wrenching" effect of the GPL. Some advocates of the GPL often say, "Just go to the original author and license the code." However, they ignore the fact that (a) Many authors of GPLed code share Stallman's anti-business ideology and will not do so; and (b) Because the code has zero market value, licensing it is a dead loss.
Finally, it is often impossible to license GPLed code because it is not possible to establish authorship.
These mechanisms reinforce the intended effect of the GPL: to destroy programmers' businesses, markets, and livelihoods.
--Brett Glass
--Brett
Michael: while you're working on that TForm/TButton Linux app, could you possibly arrange to provide a command line compiler which can create native FreeBSD binaries? (FreeBSD has a Linux emulator, so the compiler can cross-compile itself. The GUI stuff will follow easily, because XFree86 is the same on both systems.) I've done contract work for Borland before -- as far back as 1985 (Turbo Pascal Tutor, Turbo Editor Toolbox, Turbo Communications Toolbox, IBM VCO Toolbox) and as recently as the first version of Delphi. I'll gladly do the port for you.
--Brett Glass
This is why, while the BSD license (and other similar licenses) allow programmers to stand on one another's shoulders and be rewarded for their efforts, the GPL intentionally handicaps any programmer who seeks to be justly rewarded for his creative work.
The fact that you claim that my correct accounts of Stallman's motives "border on slander" indicates that you may have been deceived by the rhetoric on the FSF's Web site, which has been intentionally crafted to hide those motives.
Here's an interesting case in point. About a year ago, I pointed out on a public mailing list some text on the FSF site in which Richard's anti-business motives were clearly evident. What did Richard do? He elided the text, leaving no evidence that it had ever been there. Sort of Big Brotherish.
--Brett
At the Robix booth, we were very polite, and asked lots of intelligent questions. The utter change of attitude we saw when we asked about drivers for UNIX was quite a surprise. (And, no, we did NOT insist that the company give its code away for free. We're not GPL zealots.)
The above message appears to be intended as an ad hominem attack on me personally as well as an unwarranted attack on the BSDs. Perhaps that's why the poster posted as "Anonymous Coward."
--Brett Glass
To which statement do you refer? I made several statements above, though they were related.
None of them, however, were made in a spirit of cynicism. Rather, they point out what's really so -- what one can see when one cuts through the rhetoric and examines the intended and actual effects of the GPL. I've thought long and hard about these issues, listened to many people. My comments above are a distillation of some of my observations.
I beg to differ with you. My work on Linux has been totally, 100% motivated by wanting to contribute to a greater good. A community work. And many, many of my peers and friends (many of whom I know in RL) function similarily.
It sounds as if your intentions are very good -- and I respect them. However, the actual effects of your work may not be to contribute as much to a greater good as you would like. The GPL has a negative impact, as does the generation of new code which is licensed under it. If you truly want to do the most good for the world, you should license your code under a license which does not contain the GPL's anti-business, anti-programmer, anti-advancement "poison pill." I'd love to see you contribute to one of the BSDs (NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, or PicoBSD), or to Apache, or to XFree86, or to BIND.
We're helping to build a better world. At least, that's how we feel. How sad that you don't feel the same!
Unfortunately, Richard Stallman's writings are designed to encourage people to feel as if they are helping to build a better world, when in fact they are furthering Richard's personal agenda of spite against commercial softare development. This is, indeed, a sad situation! Again, you can truly benefit all of us by contributing to projects which consist of code that is released under a different license.
I hope not all of the BSD developers are as disillusioned as you seem to be.
I'm not "disillusioned;" rather, over time I have come to see through the illusion projected by Stallman and the "Free Software Foundation" (which, in fact, captures software so that Stallman can use it as a weapon rather than making it free for all to use).
And as for the GPL's supposed roots in "spite and jealousy" as you portray... I don't purport to speak for RMS. I've never met the man in RL.
You should -- or should at least listen to tapes of his speeches and/or read transcripts of them.
When Richard is speaking to individuals, or when he speaks before a group which he considers to be receptive to it, he reveals his true agenda: one of spite against those who make money via software or in fact any form of intellectual property. Engage him sufficiently, and he will assert bluntly that the GPL is designed to sabotage the efforts of anyone who wishes to reap rewards via such creative work.
But you know what? He's irrelivent. The GPL is being used as a tool for the greater good, a way to contribute to a project much larger than the sum of the individuals working on it, while still having some sense of security that the community project cannot be stolen.
Again, the concept that there is a "community" is a sham. Each contributor is an individual with his or her own goals and motivations. Re-using and building upon open source is no more "stealing" from a community than is using information one has gleaned from a library book to make money.
The GPL is independant of its creator.
So, in that sense, is a computer virus. But, like the virus, the GPL does great harm.
The analogy goes further. A virus is often spread via deception or stealth. Likewise, the GPL is made to appear harmless via the language in its "preamble." (How many licenses of any kind do you know of that have a "preamble?" The sole purpose of the one that's attached to the GPL is to deceive users and developers about the license's true purpose.) Stallman, in his essay "Why Software Should Not Have Owners," urges programmers to "infect" their employers' software with the GPL so as to sabotage their attempts to make money from their hard work.
I as a developer want to contribute to this community project, and I want assurence that our work will not be stolen and incorperated into someone else's project, enhanced, and kept proprietary.
This contradicts your assertion, earlier, that you would like your code to do the maximum possible good. In order to maximize the benefits which people may derive from your code, you must allow them to use it for any purpose.
I want assurence that ALL derivatives of our work are kept Free - and that means the source MUST be available. The GPL provides this, the BSD licence(s) does(do) not.
This is a warped definition of "free," as indicated by the capitalization. It is, alas, part of Stallman's rhetoric and dogma.
Stallman's deceptive agenda relies on an old rhetorical technique called a "pivot word" -- a shift, within a given context, from one meaning of a word to another. In this case, the shift is from the meaning "without cost" to the anthropomorphic meaning "free to do what it will" -- a meaning which cannot be applied to code because it is not a sentient being.
You want to know what I really think? Based on what I've read from you, I think you're a small-minded, petty man that is incapable of contributing to a project without baking his ego into it, and so equally incapable of conceiving of a world in which people donate -freely!- their hard work and time to selflessly advance a community project.
Either that, or you're so threatened by the sheer power of a group of community-minded, motivated developers that you blindly lash out at them. A dinosaur being overrun by a horde of mammals.
How sad for you in either case!
And how truly sad that you appear to have sunk to a level when you no longer argue the individual points of an opinion; you resort to repeating yourself over and over. You know what that is Brett? DOGMA.
The above is a combination of an ad hominem attack and a repetition of Stallman's rhetoric and dogma. It does not advance your argument.
Again, if you really do espouse the goals you state above -- to maximize the good you do for others and to contribute to software projects which do so -- you will, I hope, see through Stallman's smokescreen and eschew the GPL.
There are many projects out there which are truly open source (the GPL violates at least one and probably two of the points of the Open Source Definition), and produce truly unencumbered software. They could use your help.
--Brett Glass
Cygnus' eCOS is another option, though it would require more porting effort. Cygnus -- which started out as a company that supported GPLed software exclusively -- recognized that the GPL was inappropriate for embedded operating systems, and drafted a license which allowed developers such as yourself to use it without giving away the farm.
--Brett Glass