Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:48:33 -0500 From: Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: dyson@freebsd.org Cc: cmott@srv.net, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GPL Message-ID: <199702182348.SAA09936@kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <199702180352.WAA03008@dyson.iquest.net> (toor@dyson.iquest.net)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
#include <disclaimers/not-lawyer.h> #include <disclaimers/not-fsf-spokesman.h> #include <disclaimers/blanket.h> >> 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? >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. For a user, the GPL is as much of a carte blanche as you want. You can use it, you can distribute it, you can sell it, whatever you want, just so long as it stays GPL'd. >The second (and more substantial) complaint, is that derived works >using GPLed code end up being encumbered by the terms of the GPL. This is a feature, not a bug. It was designed that way intentionally, to keep GNU's works from becoming tools for the proprietary software people. >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. This is misleading. An author can write code, release it under GPL, modify it, and release it non-GPL'd. (Example: ICS chess server) If somebody else writes modifications, and signs the copyright over to the original author (as most people do), then the author is still free to release it non-GPL'd. If somebody else writes modifications, copyrights and GPLs them, and shows them to the author for inclusion without signing over the copyright, then either work can only come out of GPL if all involved parties agree. >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. This is assuming there is such a case. >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. Assuming that you don't mind giving out your source, this isn't a problem. I realize that you didn't do this, but I'll point it out before somebody brings it up. Some people have interpreted that section of the GPL to mean that you must, in perpetua, provide your customers and their friends and neighbors with source. It doesn't. It means you just stick the source code on the end of the tape with your binaries, and your obligations are fulfilled. >However, if you have put many hard hours into improving >and enhancing the GPLed code, your modifications most likely come >under GPL. We were discussing putting original code under various copyrights, not modifying previously copyrighted code. >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. That is the basis of the GPL. I work as a contract programmer on occasion. My customer asks me to write a program to help him track his oil production. (I live in West Texas, not Boston, despite my address.) I write that program. He now can track his oil. If his neighbor wants to keep track of oil, then my customer can give this to him. My efforts can help his neighbor as well, and it was good. This is the idea behind free software. This point is very well explained in the Emacs distribution and installation, in the file etc/WHY-FREE. >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. >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. This was not the intent of the GPL, in my interpretation. The intent was for me to prevent my code from falling into proprietary control. If I want the world to have access, I will publish it myself, or ask an interested university or the FSF or somebody to. >> 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. Not entirely orthogonal. The ability to make source-level modifications to the code is often extremely useful. Best, joelh -- http://www.wp.com/piquan --- Joel Ray Holveck --- joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu All my opinions are my own, not the FSF's, my employer's, or my dog's. Second law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation -- core dumped
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702182348.SAA09936>