On May 9, 1:02 pm, Paul Boddie <p...@boddie.org.uk> wrote: > On 8 Mai, 22:05, Patrick Maupin <pmau...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 8, 2:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano <st...@remove-this- > > > > No, you don't *owe* them anything, but this brings us back to Ben's > > > original post. If you care about the freedoms of Cisco's customers as > > > much as you care about the freedoms of Cisco, then that's a good reason > > > to grant those customers the same rights as you granted Cisco. > > > But I *do* grant them the same rights -- they can come to my site and > > download my software!!! > > Of course they can, but it doesn't mean that they can run that > software on the Cisco equipment they've bought, nor does it mean that > the original software can interoperate with the modified software, > that the end-user can enhance the original software in a way that they > prefer and have it work with the rest of the Cisco solution, or that > the data produced by the Cisco solution can be understood by a user- > enhanced version of the original solution or by other software that > normally interoperates with the original software.
I agree, and those people who will develop more software if they aren't lying awake at night worried about whether Cisco or some other big corporation is going to misappropriate their precious creations should certainly use the GPL. More people building more free softare is a great thing, and to the extent the GPL encourages this behavior, it is a great thing. > People often argue > that the GPL only cares about the software's freedom, not the > recipient's freedom, which I find to be a laughable claim because if > one wanted to point at something the GPL places higher than anything > else, it would be the "four freedoms" preserved for each user's > benefit. Well, I don't think you saw me arguing it that way. I will say, just like anything else, that there is a cost associated with using GPL software, and it is not necessarily a cost that I want to impose on users of all my software. > Really, copyleft licences are all about treating all recipients of the > software and modified versions or extensions of the software in the > same way: that someone receiving the software, in whatever state of > enhancement, has all the same privileges that the individual or > organisation providing the software to them enjoyed; Sure, and for a major work I think that's great, especially if it helps attract developers. Sometimes I see people GPL little 100 line libraries (of often not very good code quality) in a clear attempt to have the tail wag the dog, and that's laughably pathetic. > those "four > freedoms" should still apply to whatever software they received. That > this is achieved by asking that everyone make the same commitment to > end-user freedoms (or privileges), yet is seen as unreasonable or > actually perceived as coercion by some, says a great deal about the > perspective of those complaining about it. Well, I *do* think it's, maybe not unreasonable, but certainly unrealistic, for the author of a small library to attempt to leverage control over several potentially much larger works by placing the small library under the GPL, so in general I don't do it. I also happen to believe that there are a lot of people (perhaps like Carl Banks if I understand his post correctly) who make money delivering small customized solutions to sit on top of proprietary software solutions. If I can save one of these guys some time, perhaps they will contribute back. If I use the GPL, I will have insured that one of these guys cannot possibly link my software to, e.g. Oracle, so he has to reinvent the wheel. So, for some use-cases, I sincerely believe that the GPL license creates unnecessary, wasteful friction. But the tone of your last statement and some of your statements below make it abundantly clear that you've made up your mind about my morals and aren't at all interested in my reasoning. > > So, that gets back to my argument > > about what I like to see in a package I use, and how I license things > > according to what I would like see. For me, the golden rule dictates > > that when I give a gift of software, I release it under a permissive > > license. I realize that others see this differently. > > Yes, but what irritates a lot of people is when you see other people > arguing that some other random person should license their own > software permissively because it's "better" or "more free" when what > they really mean is that "I could use it to make a proprietary > product". I'm not telling anybody what to do. I'm just explaining why I usually use the MIT license for things I write, and will often not consider using a library licensed under the GPL. What irritated me enough to comment on this thread was the IMHO sanctimonious and inflammatory "Unless you place such a low value the freedom of your users". > > To me, the clear implication of the blanket statement that you have to > > use the GPL if you care at all about users is that anybody who doesn't > > use the GPL is uncaring. > > Well, if you want the users to enjoy those "four freedoms" then you > should use a copyleft licence. If you choose a permissive licence then > it more or less means that you don't care about (or have no particular > position on the matter of) the users being able to enjoy those > privileges. I believe you coined the term "uncaring", but I think Mr > Finney's statement stands up to scrutiny. I personally don't think that RMS's "four freedoms" are the last word on the best way for society to develop software, no. But using "Unless you place such a low value the freedom of your users" is truly an inflammatory statement, because it was given in a context where the GPL had not yet been carefully parsed and discussed, and did not make it clear that the "freedoms" being discussed are a particular set of "freedoms" and not, for example, those freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights. (And as Steven has carefully pointed out, not all freedoms are necessarily Good Things.) Regards, Pat -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
