[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: GPL Liscensing on New Release: What Gives? (fwd)
Maybe my terseness in my previous message did not really reflect what I
wanted to say there. I did not mean to imply that the use of the GPL
for commercial interests, as Kaffe does and the OSKit has reserved the
right to do is something I oppose: in fact, it is legitimate and
deserved commercial interests that are being protected. For instance,
while Kaffe was under a BSD license, other companies have been known to
rip code off it while not contributing back to its main base.
I also feel I need to add some interpretation to my statement about
how this will influence the free software community: I think that this
use of the GPL will separate the people with certain philosophical views
from those who merely have an interest in the virtues of source availability
and an open source development process (the often-touted "bazaar") and
its resulting benefits, without wanting to make any particular statement
about how society should apply intellectual property law to software.
- Godmar
Forwarded message:
>
> [ Please apply the usual `I don't speak for my employer' disclaimer here: ]
>
> I personally see an interesting twist in how the use of the GPL has
> changed.
>
> While originally conceived and applied by people whose views on
> issues such as intellectual property were often rather excentric [1],
> the GPL is now also being used to protect commercial interests [2].
>
> The future will show how successful these attempts will be, and how
> this use will influence attitudes in the so-called free software community.
>
> - Godmar
>
> ---
> [1]:
> http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#TOCIntellectualProperty
>
> [2]:
> http://www.transvirtual.com/kaffe.html
>