[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: GPL Liscensing on New Release: What Gives?


Gato (txjohnson@worldnet.att.net) wrote:

> There's nothing wrong with government funded code finding its way into
private
> software. That government wants the code to be used. That's why they
> develop it. Just because some code winds up in a close source product
doesn't
> make the ORIGINAL code unavailable.

Agreed, but GPL aims to prevent this freedom.

> If a commercial entity adds some bells and
> whistles and sells it, then more power to them. If it's something useful
that
> they won't give me, or charges too much for -- I'll write it myself. A
> commercial entity would have to do a SIGNIFICANT amount of new work to
the
> code (possibly justifying selling it) to make any derivative more
palatable
> than the original FREE alternative.

Agreed.  And more often than not, only a minor portion of the original code
would 
even be used.

> So what someone has taken my work and commercialized it? If I wanted to
> control my work, I would not release the source. Period.

Right, that is the aspiring entrepreneur's perspective.  But GPL targets
the 
entrepreneur's code via "infection" or "tainting".  The GPL "spiel" reads
like:
individual freedom is jetisoned in favor of a special interest group.  And
the "spiel"
is designed to prey on the naive by attempting to give a cartoon character
personality to the source code ("freeing" the software which unfortunately
means "enslaving" the developer-user).

> Fact is, the GPL does
> not protect you from an unscrupulous businessman. 

Again, my stand is that trying to infect or taint the businessman's code or
the 
businessman's behavior (making him a distribution point for your source by
force)
is the unethical issue to be dealt with here and not the primary tenet of
U.S. history.

> You're also under the mistaken assumption that there has to be "winners"
and
> "losers"
> in the open source development community.
> Mach was originally a research
> project. From what I understand the project is complete.  It's not
competing
> with
> Linux. Linux is an itch Linus Torvalds wanted to scratch. It's not
competing
> with MS Windows although a lot of people would like to think that. The
success
> of Linux has more to do with Linus's leadership and a supportive
following
> than any technical merit.

Good point.  But is that leadership or just marketing?  You seem to have
said (like
many say about Windows BTW) that there is some "false" leadership involved 
with Linux's success (_technological_ merit would be "true" leadership in a
high-tech industry).

> Was licensing an issue. Maybe. But if I recall, the original Mach license
was
> not
> completely open like GPL or BSD style licenses.

Hmm.. maybe there are different versions of the CMU license?  It looked
pretty much
like BSD to me last time I looked.

> Perhaps the more important
> problem
> was that only a few people were allowed to contribute to the code base.

Personally, _I_ don't see that as a problem as much as it is an asset,
IMHO.

> There's plenty of room for everyone to develop what they want. One
project
> being
> very successful shouldn't detract from all the other similar projects.

"shouldn't" being the key word there.  One theory would have it that the
masses
are easier to manipulate than the individual.  Indeed, leaders don't spend
their
lives following too often.  Point: Power corrupts, and once some critical
mass has
been established, propoganda (along with other tactics) is a way to stay in
power
even when faced with "true" leadership.

OK, I feel a little catharted now. ;)

Regards,
Tony
Follow-Ups: