Picking a license
in [Python]
|
Prev: 2to3 issues with execfile on python 3.0 on files with encoding
Next: Extract a bordered, skewed rectangle from an image
From: Paul Rubin on 9 May 2010 00:29 Carl Banks <pavlovevidence(a)gmail.com> writes: > If a commercial developer has a EULA that prevents users from > combining their tools with tools from (say) their competitors, Do you mean something like a EULA that stops you from buying a copy of Oracle and combining it with tools from IBM on the computer that you install Oracle on? Those EULAs exist but are not remotely comparable to the GPL. > The GPL does exactly that, No it doesn't (not like the above). You, the licensee under the GPL, can make those combinations and use them as much as you want on your own computers. You just can't distribute the resulting derivative to other people. With proprietary software you can't redistribute the software to other people from day zero (or even use more copies within your own company than you've paid for), regardless of whether you've combined it with anything. And since you usually don't get the source code, it's awfully hard to make derived combinatoins.
From: Paul Rubin on 9 May 2010 00:36 aahz(a)pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes: > What does your argument claim about Apache? No idea. I don't have the impression the developer communities are really similar, and Apache httpd doesn't have all that many developers compared with something like Linux (I don't know what happens if you add all the sister projects like Lucene). I do know that the GPL has gotten companies to release major GCC improvements that they would have preferred to make proprietary if they'd had the option. That includes G++.
From: Patrick Maupin on 9 May 2010 01:01 On May 8, 11:29 pm, Paul Rubin <no.em...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > No it doesn't (not like the above). You, the licensee under the GPL, > can make those combinations and use them as much as you want on your own > computers. You just can't distribute the resulting derivative to other > people. With proprietary software you can't redistribute the software > to other people from day zero (or even use more copies within your own > company than you've paid for), regardless of whether you've combined it > with anything. And since you usually don't get the source code, it's > awfully hard to make derived combinatoins. But the point is that a lot of small developers who are writing software don't need to distribute any software other than software they wrote themselves. Their customers will have Oracle/Microsoft/IBM/ CA/whatever licenses already. Companies like Oracle support various APIs that allow custom software to be connected to their software, so if Carl is writing stuff to support Oracle, he can just distribute his software to the customer, and let the customer link it himself. Now when Carl's software links to GPLed software, it gets interesting. Although it's probably a legal overreach, the FSF often attempts to claim that software like Carl's, *by itself*, must be licensed under the GPL, simply because it can link to GPLed software, even if it doesn't actually contain any GPLed software. (Whether it's a legal overreach or not, it's the position of the FSF, and of a lot of authors who use the GPL, so morally it's probably best to follow their wishes.) The end result is that Carl can deliver software to his customer that lets the customer link Oracle and Microsoft software together, for example, but is prohibited from delivering software that lets the customer link GPLed code to Oracle code, because the FSF considers that software that would do that is a "derived work" and that Carl is making a distribution when he gives it to his customer, and he is not allowed to distribute GPLed code that links to proprietary Oracle code. Regards, Pat
From: Patrick Maupin on 9 May 2010 01:09 On May 8, 11:36 pm, Paul Rubin <no.em...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > a...(a)pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes: > > What does your argument claim about Apache? > > No idea. I don't have the impression the developer communities are > really similar, and Apache httpd doesn't have all that many developers > compared with something like Linux (I don't know what happens if you add > all the sister projects like Lucene). > > I do know that the GPL has gotten companies to release major GCC > improvements that they would have preferred to make proprietary if > they'd had the option. That includes G++. Absolutely, and as Aahz acknowledges, RMS was a pioneer in introducing people to the concept of free software. But fast forward to today, and as ESR points out, the FOSS development model is so superior for many classes of software that proprietary companies contribute to free software even when they don't have to, and are working hard to support hybrid models that the GPL doesn't support. See, for example, Apple's support of BSD, Webkit, and LLVM. Apple is not a "do no evil" corporation, and their contributions back to these packages are driven far more by hard-nosed business decisions than by any expectation of community goodwill. Regards, Pat
From: Steven D'Aprano on 9 May 2010 01:19
On Sat, 08 May 2010 16:39:33 -0700, Carl Banks wrote: > GPL is about fighting a holy war against commercial software. Much GPL software *is* commercial software. Given that you're so badly misinformed about the GPL that you think it can't be commercial, why should we pay any attention to your opinions about it? -- Steven |