OT - Closing Off An Open-Source Product

[Dave LeBlanc]

No, GPL isn't not free because you can't release binaries - you
obviously can. It's not free because it takes away the right to
determine what license proprietary code, which happens to use some GPL
code, can be released under...

It was this problem with the GCC standard libraries that caused the
GLL to come to be: almost no one would use GCC since building against
the GPL'd std lib forced one to make one's proprietary source
available.

Enforced "freedom" is not freedom.

Dave LeBlanc

On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:04:24 -0500, "Chris Gonnerman"
<chris.gonnerman at usa.net> wrote:

>----- 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.
>
>
>