Still no new license -- but draft text available

[Grant Griffin]

Pat McCann wrote:

> Grant Griffin <grant.griffin at iowegian.com> writes:
>
> > [ stuff on GPL as virus ]
>
> To be fair, ALL software licenses are viruses because the license
> attaches itself to all derivations forever regardless of whether the
> license requires attachment of license text.  It's the law.

I thought someone might raise this point.

I guess the difference is that all software licenses that I know of except the GPL are to
be used or not used as the software author intends.  However, the "copyleft" terms of the
GPL seek to infect software that some software's author who incorporates GPL'ed code into
his non-GPL'ed code does _not_ intend.  This is the "infection" aspect of it: it's
completely analagous to someone picking up a cold as a result of someone who already had
the cold sneezing.

> But the GPL is a nasty virus in that it affects not only the licensor's
> IP in the derivative work, but the licensee's IP and his license on his IP.
>
> > One of my small missions in life is to educate the gullible and help them take
> > prophylactic measures against this thing; as recent world-wide experiences with both
> > biological and computer viruses have shown, it's best for people to individually
> > protect themselves from these things before they become an epedimic.  (Too bad
> > "McAffee" doesn't work on this one. ;-)
>
> Grant,
>
> I feel the same way, but often loose hope that it's worthwhile.
> It appears it won't die out until it kills its hosts.

Right.  Under the "survival of the fittest" concept, it's only a matter of time.  (But it
might be quite a _long_ time!)

> I'd like to see a non-copyleft open source sub-community form with more
> organized effort to promote such software and philosophy.  So far, all
> I have is ideas.  (Except I can't come up with a good name for it.)
> But I'm not an organizational kinda guy.  Are you?

If that's a hint, I guess I'll have to just say that I've already got too many irons in
the fire.  So I mainly just try to "educate" the public a little when the opportunity
presents itself.  However, one small effort I've made in this way is the "Wide Open
License" (WOL), which you'll find at http://www.dspguru.com/wol.htm.

The WOL is about the same as other popular "do what you want except sue me" open-source
licenses.  The primary difference is just marketing.  Since the "GPL" is a sort of "brand
name", a brand name alternative like "WOL" is needed.  (I think many casual open-source
authors just put the GPL license on their work because "that's the thing to do"; I think
many of them don't even really think about or understand how that limits adoption of their
work--which is probably why they made it open-source in the first place.)

Also, I think the concept of "wide open" --which is to carry the idea of "open" source to
its logical conclusion by making the software open for _all_ uses, without restriction--is
a good marketing idea.  That bogus "freedom" thing that the copyleft folks have been
pushing has been an effective marketing concept, so to compete with it, one needs an
equally appealing marketing concept.  Not only is the idea of carrying "openness" to its
logical conclusion appealing, but--in contrast to the freedom thing--it's even 100.0%
truthful. <pinch me!>

then-again,-time-and-chance-happeneth-to-them-all-ly y'rs,

=g2
--
_____________________________________________________________________

Grant R. Griffin                                       g2 at dspguru.com
Publisher of dspGuru                           http://www.dspguru.com
Iowegian International Corporation       http://www.iowegian.com