Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 22:52:00 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: cmott@srv.net (Charles Mott) Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GPL Message-ID: <199702180352.WAA03008@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970217185359.2982A-100000@darkstar> from "Charles Mott" at Feb 17, 97 07:03:49 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I have seen a number of back handed comments towards the GNU public
> license. For individualistic (not particularly rational) reasons, I
> prefer not to attach the GPL to any piece of free software I write. What
> is the complaint that others have with GPL?
>
(Note that I am not a lawyer, and I have tried NOT to flame in this
message, and is probably not the entirety of my opinion, but is generally
my position on GPL -- it is NOT the opinion of anybody or group, but
my own.)
I have a couple of complaints about GPL, that basically if people didn't
question the terms, then it would have become the default "free license."
(Some people might say that indeed it IS the default free license.)
The first (and simplest) complaint is the use of the word freedom in it's
preamble (haven't looked at it in a long time, so I might be missing a bit.)
It first innocuously looks like a "good" default free license. Well, it
is a good license, but it's use has severe consequences. Sometimes my
tirades are to remind new people coming online that they
should read the license terms carefully AND also look at the ramifications
of the license.
The second (and more substantial) complaint, is that derived works
using GPLed code end up being encumbered by the terms of the GPL. This
kind of makes GPL self replicating. The negative ramifications of that don't
come apparent until one of my other complaints about the license. This
self-replicating nature hasn't been tested in court (AFAIK), but the
risk is there. Frankly, even if it isn't illegal, I still believe that
one should follow the wishes of the original software developer who placed
their code under GPL.
Note: Imagine a situation where all of the BSD networking code
was released under GPL instead of the BSD license. That
networking code would infect the rest of the software with
GPL, and perhaps make the code relatively useless due to
the encumberances with GPL.
The third (and yet more substantial) complaint, is that the original
author who releases code to the world under GPL, is also bound by the
GPL that is applied to the modifications of his original source code.
In essense, if the GPL is inappropriate for a given application, there
is a large number of authors that need to be negotiated with to release
the code from GPL and allow distribution under terms other than GPL.
The fourth (and the basis for the above points being of concern) complaint,
is that if you distribute binaries of a program under GPL, then you are
obligated to make sure that the receiver of your distribution is able
to get the source code of the program. If you haven't made any modifications
to that GPLed code, you will likely be able to point them in the direction
of an FTP site. However, if you have put many hard hours into improving
and enhancing the GPLed code, your modifications most likely come under GPL.
With that, you will be divulging ideas that were potentially time consuming
(expensive) to create. You will then be compelled to give that hard fought
work to the person that you gave the binary to. The cost of using (binding
and redistribution) of even portions GPLed code with your own is that your
code will likely be likewise encumbered. In many cases, that cost is
indeed high, and might not be considered when incorporating GPLed code into
a product until it is too late.
The fifth (and probably not very important point) is that it is commonly
misunderstood that the person who has distributed a GPLed program has
to give it to anyone who asks. They don't have to. They only have to
give source code away to those that have negotiated access to the binaries.
That access to the binaries is often limited to those who have paid $$$
for the necessary "support" that will allow them to "properly" use the
software. Of course, for various reasons, it is not likely in the interest
of the receiver of the GPLed code to "give away" that code to other parties.
One reason for a receiver of GPLed code to give away the code might be
to do so in order to get support from the new party. My complaint here
is primarily to show that the GPL doesn't provide a guaranteed
redistribution of source code. Of course, many other license terms don't
either, but this point was made just to show that there are ways around
the intent of GPL.
Summing it all up, the above describe a set of "controls" and "limitations"
that seem to be quite contrary with the notion of freedom. The key in the
use of GPL (or any other license or contract) is to read and understand it's
ramifications. Frankly, many people who take license terms seriously (and
also have strong ethical feelings) might not think that GPL is an appropriate
license to encumber their software with. (That statement can also be true
regarding the "Artistic License" or the "BSD license or its variants".)
>
> That being said, I still have the highest respect for Stallman and the
> Free Software Foundation. FreeBSD could not exist were it not for gcc.
> I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't quite a bit
> of other GNU software on the FreeBSD cdrom.
>
There is a lot of wonderful software under the GPL, however, there is
alot of wonderful software under BSD and or more restrictive license terms
than GPL also. IMO, the quality of software is pretty much orthogonal to
the terms of software use and redistribution.
Caveat License-chooser!!! :-).
John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702180352.WAA03008>