OT - Closing Off An Open-Source Product

[Chris Gonnerman]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Clark C. Evans" <cce at clarkevans.com>
Subject: Re: OT - Closing Off An Open-Source Product


> On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Chris Watson wrote:
> > > Stating what restrictions other people can put is in a contravariant
> > > position. The more freedom you want to ensure, the more you have to
> > > restrict, and vice versa.
> > 
> > More nonsensical babble.
> 
> Not at all.  Freedom is a propery with built-in duality.
> 
> Public domain offers the *greatest* freedom for potential
> users of the material, while it affords the *least* freedom
> for the author, i.e., they cannot demand royalties
> after the product is put into public domain and cannot
> thereafter, as in individual, restrict its usage.

This isn't a question of the freedom of the author (who can demand any
darn thing he/she wants regardless of whether or not anyone will pay
attention) but rather of *control*... the author of public-domain
software gives away all real control of the code.

> Keeping your source code private (aka Private Domain)
> offers the *least* freedom for potential users of the
> material (they don't have it), while it offers the
> *greatest* freedom for the author, they can choose the
> complete disposition of the source without restriction.
 
> In between we have various licenses... where the 
> creator grants particular freedoms to the users
> and retains other freedoms.   Thus, to talk about
> more or less freedom, one must consider whose
> freedom you are talking about.  Talk about the
> GPL or BSD license being "more or less free"
> without a class of individuals affected is 
> nonsensical babble.  *evil grin*

Chris Watson keeps saying the "GPL is not free" because it prevents
releasing modified programs in binary-only forms.  (I hope I have this
exactly right).  The object of the GPL doing this is, of course, to
produce more free source code by requiring those modifying or extending
the GPL'ed program to free their source IF they release binaries.

Personally I like this.  More free source code is good.  As a programmer,
I understand what I am being required to give up to use the GPL or LGPL,
and I must choose for myself.  Sometimes I use it for my own programs, 
and sometimes I don't.

What irks me is the repeated statement that the "GPL is not a free
license" primarily because of one particular freedom that is restricted,
namely the ability to release modified binary-only copies of the program.

Why on Earth would you want to do that anyway?  You lose the bug-resistance
feature of Open Source code when you hide your changes, and you then must
maintain a private, modified version which may quickly become stale as the 
public copy is updated by those who ARE freeing their source.

THAT to me is a PITA, not the license that "forces" programmers not to do
that silly thing anyway.  Of course, I personally feel that 98% of
commercial software is crap, who's source should never see the light of
day for fear that some gullible junior programmer might think it's good
and copy it.