On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 07:27:34PM +0200, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> But the GPL causes the following sort of "comtamination": Take any of the
> important pieces of GPL software on the Internet. Most, if not all, of them
> have been written by more than one person. Some of them have been written
> or update by dozens of people over the years. Each of these people are not
> only forbidden from releasing the improved version under a more restrictive
> license, but also from releasing it under a less restrictive one!
That is necessary for copyleft. If you could take Linux and release it
under a less restrictive license, you could also immediately relase it
under a MORE restrictive license. Just release it under a license that
does not enforce the "no more restrcitions" part, and it's not
copylefted anymore. The idea of the GPL was to add the minimal set of
restrictions that would not allow anyone to add further restrictions.
> So any
> program that once caught the GPL "virus" will stay a carrier for ever, or
> until every one of the authors agree to change the license, which isn't likely
> to ever happen in a program with many authors. What happens happens when
> a program has 20 authors, and 19 agree to change the license but 1 doesn't,
> and the small part that guy wrote is so strongly intertwined in the program
> it can no longer be easily removed? (e.g., this guy added a new, trivial,
> function to some API, and any attempt to redo his work will obviously end
> up looking the same thing).
Well, if someone does not want his or her code distributed in a
certain way, and has not given you permission to do so, all you can do
is respect his or her wishes...
But there is no virus, and there is no contamination: just remove that
person's code from the program, rewriting it if necessary. The rest of
the program is not affected by the removed code's license. It never
was, either.
By the way, that is one of the major reasons the FSF accepts copyright
transfers of software: so that it can relicense them under a more
liberal license if the original author is unreachable. Also, that is
why most people put their software under "GPL version 2 or later" --
the FSF can release a more liberal version of the GPL and it will
automatically apply. And just to make sure, there is always dual
licensing (invented by Larry Wall, a classical TIMTOWDI approach :)
> > Also, nowhere does the GPL limit "interoperability". Only use code as
> > part of another program. Whether or not you consider an executable and
> > a dynamic library accompanying it two parts of the same program or not
> > is a different issue. GPLv3 intends to clarify this and other points.
>
> There's another problematic issue about the GPL. It's quite clear how it
> applies to software companies, but how does it apply to Hardware companies?
>
> For example, some companies are selling a VCR-like product that records on
> a hard-disk and that allows cool features like playing back while recording
> (you can skip commercials if you start watching the movie 20 minutes after
> starting recording it!). Anyway, some of these products are actually small
> modified PCs (with extra, special hardware), running Linux plus the company's
> proprietary software. Now, how does the GPL apply here?
>
> If needed, the company can supply the product with a CD of the GNU/Linux
> sources (but it's probably not needed because it is found on the Internet).
> But do they have to also give away the sources of the proprietary VCR-interface
> program? It doesn't look that way. I actually find this a good thing, because
> the GPL was meant to stop the tyranny of the software companies, not of the
> consumer-electronics companies. On the contrary: the consumer-electronic
> companies are damaged by the software giants in the same way us invidual users
> are, and should be allowed to benefit by the same solution.
> Besides, all the "crap" about your rights to make copies doesn't really apply
> to consumer electronics: you can't (yet) copy a physical machine.
I'd say that as soon as a company releases software, it doesn't matter
whether the company's core business is hardware or not. The software
is governed by the same laws.
I'm not sure I understand: do you mean the GPL should or should not be
applicable to hardware? Or firmware (there was a discussion on
debian-devel about firmware not long ago, unfortunately without
conclusive findings).
And by the way: has anyone in Israel tried any of these machines? I
suppose the schedule planning features cannot be used, because they
are tried to a service that is only given in the US, but it still
sounds cool enough.
- Adi Stav
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
