Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 02:37:33 -0700 (PDT) From: <unknown@riverstyx.net> To: John Baldwin <jobaldwi@vt.edu> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: What's wrong with GPL? (was Re: Jordan the Confused) Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9904160236530.1984-100000@hades.riverstyx.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9904160213480.1108-100000@hades.riverstyx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
After rereading the GPL from this slightly different perspective, I wish to change my position :-) The GPL is pretty borg-like. I'm now anti-GPL. I hadn't realised how many rights you end up giving up with that thing attached to your software... Lordy. --- tani hosokawa river styx internet On Fri, 16 Apr 1999 unknown@riverstyx.net wrote: > I'm not saying that GPL is suited for everything. Obviously, it's not. > Tax software comes to mind immediately... wouldn't be much point in > compiling all that data and writing code to handle each year's taxation if > anyone could come in and capitalize on your efforts any time the liked. > However, for some purposes GPL is perfect. It seems to work great for > operating system development... > > And your driver analogy is flawed. I'm pretty sure that driver's have > already proven to be separate programs. So if you port a driver to your > own personal OS, then you have to release your new driver code, but you > shouldn't have to release your OS source. I'm positive that there are > Linux drivers that don't have available source code. I use a closed > source X server for my i870 card for example. > > --- > tani hosokawa > river styx internet > > > On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > > On 16-Apr-99 unknown@riverstyx.net wrote: > > > But in regards to the GPL, it seems like a fairly innocuous kinda thing. > > > I write some software, declare it to be GPL'd, and thus guaranteeing that > > > the source code shall remain available. It doesn't really limit me all > > > that much. And if I write a new version, I can opt to not release it > > > under the GPL, freeing me from its burdens should I decide that I want to > > > go commercial with it. > > > > Actually, (someone correct me if I'm wrong), but if you release version 1.0 > > under GPL, and use any of the 1.0 code in version 2.0 that you try to sell w/o > > the source, then anyone can sue you for the source code to version 2.0 because > > it would be a derivative of 1.0 and by the GPL that means the source to 2.0 > > would have to be GPL'd and thus freely available, which prevents you from > > selling it, for all intents and purposes. It gets much worse when you have a > > large propietary product, such as your own OS specific to your application, > > and you want to add drivers for a newer network card. You wouldn't be able to > > use GPL'd code because you would screw yourself. You'd have to release the > > source code to your propietary OS, which your competitors would gladly take > > from you and sink you. OTOH, such a company can safely use BSL'd code without > > worrying about having to release the source to their competitors. And let's > > face it, not all software is going to be free, we do have to eat somehow. So > > we can't kill all possibility of selling software. > > > > > --- > > > tani hosokawa > > > river styx internet > > > > --- > > > > John Baldwin <jobaldwi@vt.edu> -- http://members.freedomnet.com/~jbaldwin/ > > PGP Key: http://members.freedomnet.com/~jbaldwin/pgpkey.asc > > "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.freebsd.org > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.04.9904160236530.1984-100000>