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 01:27 Patrick Maupin <pmaupin(a)gmail.com> writes: > 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. That is true. They've also supported GPL projects. I think they just don't want to be in the business of selling those sorts of products. They're making too much money selling iphones and laptops to want such a distraction. Things were different with G++. The company that developed it would have liked to go into the compiler business with it, but it wasn't an option, so they released under GPL. Linus has said similar things have happened with Linux, but I don't know details.
From: Patrick Maupin on 9 May 2010 02:01 On May 9, 12:19 am, Steven D'Aprano <st...(a)REMOVE-THIS- cybersource.com.au> wrote: > 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? I think, when Carl wrote "commercial" he meant what many others, including RMS, would call "proprietary." And, although many people who use the GPL license may not be fighting the holy war, the original author of the license certainly is. When asked how he sees proprietary software businesses making a profit when more and more software is free, RMS replied "That's unethical, they shouldn't be making any money. I hope to see all proprietary software wiped out. That's what I aim for. That would be a World in which our freedom is respected. A proprietary program is a program that is not free. That is to say, a program that does respect the user's essential rights. That's evil. A proprietary program is part of a predatory scheme where people who don't value their freedom are drawn into giving it up in order to gain some kind of practical convenience." And while I agree somewhat with RMS when the subject is certain proprietary companies that try really hard to lock in users and lock up their data, I don't view all proprietary software as evil, and I certainly agree that RMS's language is couched in religious rhetoric. Regards, Pat
From: Paul Rubin on 9 May 2010 02:42 Patrick Maupin <pmaupin(a)gmail.com> writes: > I certainly agree that RMS's language is couched in religious rhetoric. I would say political movement rhetoric. He's not religious. He uses the word "spiritual" sometimes but has made it clear he doesn't mean that in a religious sense.
From: Carl Banks on 9 May 2010 03:05 On May 8, 10:19 pm, Steven D'Aprano <st...(a)REMOVE-THIS- cybersource.com.au> wrote: > 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? In the interests of not allowing petty semantics to interfere with this rational discussion, I will correct myself slightly although I diagree with the terminology. The GPL is a holy war against closed source commercial software. Anyone who GPL's their code is fighting that war whether they intend to or not. And losing it, I might add. There are a small number--maybe 20--of GPLed packages that have the leverage to force monopolistic corporations to release their code when they wouldn't have otherwise. Even then it's only bits and pieces (e.g., NVIDIA's kernel model-- fortunately the X Video driver is allowed to be closed source, otherwise there'd be no driver on Linux). Meanwhile there's thousands of GPL packages the corporations won't touch and they--and we--suffer because of it. I might like to buy a commercial plugin for Blender, but there aren't any because it's GPL. If good commercial plugins are available, maybe some firms would find Blender a reasonable low-cost alternative to expensive products like Maya, thus benefiting the whole community. As it is, there is no chance of that happening, all thanks to GPL. That's the real effect of the GPL, the one that happens on the ground every day. But if you want to think that the GPL is furthering the cause of open souce on account of a few companies who donated a few lines of code to GCC, be my guest. As for open-source "commercial" software, there's a different holy war being waged against it, namely reality. No one actually makes money on it. Open source is the bait to attract customers to buy other services, ans that's what they make money on. To me this means it's not commercial but it doesn't matter: the GPL even interferes with this. Companies do make money supporting GPL, but it's in spite of GPL and not because of it. A permissive license would allow companies more freedom to offer their proprietary enhancements. Bottom line is, GPL hurts everyone: the companies and open source community. Unless you're one of a handful of projects with sufficient leverage, or are indeed a petty jealous person fighting a holy war, the GPL is a bad idea and everyone benefits from a more permissive licence. Carl Banks
From: Carl Banks on 9 May 2010 03:22
On May 8, 9:29 pm, Paul Rubin <no.em...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > Carl Banks <pavlovevide...(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? Yes > Those EULAs exist but are not remotely comparable to > the GPL. They're not exactly the same but they're quite comparable and both disrespectful to the user. > > 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. Really, commercial closed source programs don't have APIs? If the EULA isn't disrespectful likle the GPL, then I could write a program that links against multiple closed source API and distribute closed or open source binaries. Can't do either if you change one of the proprietary programs to GPL. GPL is a lot more restrictive than mere closed source proprietary when it comes to stuff like that. Carl Banks |