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

Re: GPL Liscensing on New Release: What Gives?

> From: Tripp Lilley <tlilley@perspex.com>
> On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Tony Taylor wrote:
> 
> >  some kind of agreement to voluntary servitude at best.  Scenario: I
buy a
> >  toaster.  On the box it says that to use that toaster, I agree to give
my 
> >  future children up for adoption.  GPL at most can cover only the
original 
> >  sources to which it was applied at most.  I agree that GPL needs its
day
> >  in court (or its day being thrown out of court!).
> 
> THE TOASTER IS FREE! And the author damned well /is/ entitled to say
"hey,
> if you take my free toaster and make copies of it, you'd better make
those
> copies and their derivatives free, too!"
> 
> If you write original sources, you may choose to use the GPL or not. If
> you use GPLed sources as the basis for code you intend to distribute,
> without negotiating an alternative license with the copyright holder who
> licensed the code under the GPL in the first place, then you have to use
> the GPL on that derived code.

I don't think so.  To me, GPL is null and void until it gets some kind of
official approval.  Until then, and no retroactive policy shall be valid,
it's "statements of policy" are null and void.

> Simple choices -- if you don't want to release your original code under
> the GPL, don't. If you don't want to release your derived code under the
> GPL, you may a) not release it at all, b) negotiate an alternative
license
> with the copyright holder or c) find something else upon which to base
> your code!
> 
> Look, I just can't buy how you're getting all worked up about what
SOMEONE
> ELSE CHOOSES TO DO WITH THEIR CODE!! If you don't like it, there's
nothing
> stopping you from writing your own.

I don't have a problem with copywriting of one's own source.  But to
attempt to impose action on the user of it or to attempt to commandier the
user's source, I believe is unlawful (or should be made so).  

Is GPL just an attempt by GPL writers to actually get some "good"
commercial-quality code in the future?  (Food for thought).

> Now, really, could we drop this thread? It's got very little to do with
> the OS Kit per se. If you don't like the licensing scheme, send a private
> note to the maintainers and ask what they can do about it. Hell, send a
> message to the list saying "I don't like the licensing scheme, there are
> details on my webpage, I encourage others who don't like it to sign my
> petition."
> 
> But please stop clogging the list! Especially when you're trying to
> convince us that the authors shouldn't be able to choose how they
> distribute their work!

That was paid for by tax dollars (to what extent, I don't know).   Some of
us BTW want to know the big picture and not be taken in by the glossed over
politics (they'll get ya every time!).  

Tony