On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:27:49 -0500, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>I'd go further. It's not possible to force anyone to share, but the >>>GPL aims to remove software from a system that instead aims to force >>>people NOT to share. >> Nope. IMHO, GPL attempts to achieve the vendor lock-in. For different >> purposes than another well-known vendor, but it still does. >Well you are entitled to your opinion. But *my* opinion is that the GPL >attempts to ensure that if you re-use code by an author who so desires, >then redistribution of your code is only possible by making your own >extensions to it available on the same terms. This gives you a clear choice. I agree with you. However, I don't see how your statement contradicts mine. >To put it another way, it allows an author to specify that their code >can't be hijacked for proprietary purposes *in distributed programs*. How can the source code that is _guaranteed to stay as public availability_ be _hijacked_? If it's hijacked, it's not available anymore. Making derived work proprietary in no way implies that the base work is publicly unavailable anymore. >I >will specifically point out that there is *nothing* in the GPL that >requires you to reveal the source of program you write but do not >distribute, even when such programs incorporate tons of GPL'd code. Again, I don't see why that negates my thesis of vendor lock-in: whatever software that uses GPLed code crosses inter-organizational or inter-personal border, it has to be released with source. >> It's actually even worse: the only thing you can't share on a >> well-known vendor's platform is the software written by that >> well-known vendor -- you can choose to share or choose not to >> share whatever you or other people write on this platform. >Well that's way over-simplified. And if you mean Microsoft, *say*( >Microsoft. Oh can't you take a little joke, why do we have to be so serious.. If my allusion was not funny, well, sorry. >The GPL folks are quite happy to have you "share" anything that *you* >create. Oh absolutely, and I would be happy with them washing my car for free. ;-) >Their simply-stated and elegantly-achieved intent is that you >don't "share" anything that *they* create except on the terms they have >required for their creations. But their base work is available anyway, regardless of whatever I do or don't do. >So, it seems to me, you are whining because the authors of GPL'd code >don't want you to release *their* code except under the GPL. If that was limited to _primary_ effects, that would be understandable. Which is why I'm rather fine with LGPL for instance. However, an openly stated goal is an indirect effect: achieving the goal of "all the software in the world being free" (as in their definition of freedom). Which means that indirect, _economic_ result they hope to achieve is precisely creating a practical context when this author would have hard time to release his work under license other than GPL. Why do they call "library GPL" a "lesser" GPL, Steve, and do not really like it? Is it not for the sake of this goal? Watch this carefully: if what you claim was ALL they care for, there would be no big difference for them between LGPL and GPL. And yet for them it is quite a big deal. >What gives >*you* the right to dictate to them? Conversely, what gives them the right to dictate the authors of derived works of what they do with THEIR part of work? >How would you like it if Richard >Stallman insisted that you release your code under the GPL? Which, of >course, he doesn't. Oh but he does - just indirectly. He's attempting to create such context. GPL is a sort of wolf in a sheep's skin, while Stallman pretends it's not really a wolf, and then preaches how wonderful it will be when we will sit with millions of such sheep at the table and vote what's for lunch. >>> As the MPAA knows, people do want to share, and >>>forcing them not to do so is impossible without turning the world into >>>a police state. >Socialism is unpopular for many reasons, and many of them are indeed to >do with maintaining the separation between individuals and thereby >retaining the ability to treat them as separate economic units. But we >aren't going to change that by insisting on particular software >licenses. Realize this is a very small part of a very large debate. Absolutely. I have discussed intellectual property rights issues with friends to great lengths, not just regarding the software. >And that is their choice. They should realize, however, that some >licenses (including the more recent Python licenses) are cleared as >"GPL-compatible". I believe this means that if I receive software >licensed under a GPL-compatible license, I am at liberty to distribute >it under the GPL. >I suspect that this point is far too infrequently stressed. I really don't find it very important: where the main battle is, and where some vendors achieve domination and some fail are precisely indirect economic effects of what they do. <snip> >> Actually, I get the impression that GPL-ed software is written by >> programmers for programmers, not really for end users. >> >Not at all. It's written to be redistributed under specific terms, and >anyone who doesn't like those terms has the option of redeveloping the >functionality for themselves. But they won't. And most of the time they never do. That is the very point. It's a subtle game: what you are _allowed_ to do intertwines with practical situations and what you would _will choose_ to do given how many factors influence your decisions. >You can't insist that people give you their intellectual property on >*your* terms. God forbid! This certainly not what I meant, ever, and if anybody suggests that, I have this rabbit right here that I will release to get them. :-) >That would be like insisting that the music industry bring >down the price of their clearly-overpriced products, or that the >Baltimore Orioles stop the concession stands from charging $4.50 for a >one-dollar beer. If you want a vote in such situations then your feet >are the appropriate instrument. Walk away, and stop whining :-). >Insisting will do you no good. Absolutely. However, what you present is very partial picture: there's much more to it. >> It's a man's life in a Python Programming Association. >Since I'm taking issue with you, I will end by gently pointing out that >there's a substantial minority (? - my impression) of people who might >find your tag line (which I am sure is intended to be supportive of >Python and the c.l.py ethic, such as we might agree exists), >gender-biased and therefore just as unacceptable to them as the GPL >appears to be to you. You haven't seen the episode of "Owl Stretching Time" by MP I see. :-) No worries, you just need a little re-education. ;-) -- It's a man's life in a Python Programming Association. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
