- To: slug-chat@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [chat] LGPL license w/o GPL infection
- From: Catie Flick <liedra@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon Oct 15 08:41:01 2001
On 15 Oct, invisible ink wrote a whole bunch of stuff that totally missed my point:
You totally missed my point the entire way through!
[Point] My point is that if there was a lot more freedom in free
software (so the real argument comes down to definition of freedom,
Jeff, thanks for missing my point), the freedom to choose which license
you released your stuff under, thus identifying the GPL as being
somewhat restrictive, there would never have been any name calling to
begin with. Gah. Step back from the picture a little.
> You're putting a very dark lining on a bright cloud.
I'm telling the truth; the truth hurts, blah blah blah.
>> I have a choice of what license to release my code under, but what if I
>> have to use some bizarre thing, that is outside my ability as a programmer
>> to code, that is released under the GPL? I'd have to release my code under
>> the GPL. I find that is definitely "forcing their license" on me.
> You want your cake, your hundreds and thousands, your knife, a good silver
> platter, you want to eat it, and you want it all for free. This is an
> insanely greedy notion of participating in Free Software.
Uhhuh! Note the word "free" in that first sentence. Now you're getting
the idea. I *told* you I like the O'Reilly definition, and that's
getting closer to it now. It's not a greedy notion, it's not saying that
I would violate the GPL, it's saying that I am offering people who use
*my* code the *most amount of choice there is possible* (freedom) when
they use my code. I don't think that's a greedy thing, I don't ask them
to put my name up in flashing neon lights at each street corner, I don't
ask them to release their code under the license I "chose".
> At no point are you forced to use this code. If you do not respect or agree
> with the authors intentions for their code, you do not get to participate.
> Tough luck, that is their right as the author.
Fair enough! But once again, you missed my point. Read it again.
> Note! You still have all of your Fair Use rights! (It is incredibly
> important that we not let our fair use rights be weathered away.)
Define "Fair Use Rights"?
>> I have seen very competant coders who have had to totally "reinvent the
>> wheel" and not even *look* at the GPL'd code so that they can't be told
>> they used GPL'd code in their software, and can release it under a FS
>> license of their choice. Doesn't that somewhat stunt the growth of free
> You could take it that way, but were they ever realistically going to
> participate in Free Software? If the software were licensed under something
> else that allowed them to distribute it without continuing the freedom of
> that code, would it help the growth of Free Software? Would they ever
> contribute back?
You're suggesting that everyone who doesn't license under the GPL is bad
and mean and won't license their software under a FS license. Sure.
Think about it. Depending on the software it will have a different
target market. If I were to write something targeted at home users, the
majority of them would probably be a linux user (I wouldn't know how to
write windows stuff for crap), so would understand the importance of
free software. Then it comes down to the individual. Would *you* take
some free software licensed code and release it again under a commercial
license if you had the opportunity? Probably not, unless it were for
work, or uni, or whatever. And that's a different target. You can't
assume that people are out to get free software and make it all
proprietry. Some will, but there are plenty more who understand the idea
of open source and free software and want to give back to the community
(like me! I wouldn't release my stuff under proprietry licenses unless I
was forced to).
> There's not a reason in the world that you couldn't "look at GPL'd code" if
> you were intending to reimplement something under another Free Software
> license. This is the creation of over-eager legal departments, not Free
> Software hackers.
How do you know that those Free Software hackers are not going to take
you to court though? Noone's really fully tested the legal standing of
the GPL, so noone knows what the outcome would be. Why would you risk
>> Not really, if you look at how RMS markets the GPL (especially consider
>> RMS vs. O'Reilly on the definition of "freedom" wrt free software).
>> They're on the same side if you zoom out enough, but really they're
>> fighting somewhat closer in.
> Different interests in freedom. There's no reason to fight.
So you agree that there is fighting, good. Now, this is what we're
doing, so how about we just quit it now? You're zealous and I'm zealous
and we're not going to change each other's points of view. I merely did
this as an educational exercise for the rest of slug-chat to get them
thinking about the GPL and its alternatives.
>> Yeah, I probably stuck my head into the flames, but I do feel quite
>> strongly about this issue.
> Strongly enough to defame others with similar goals? It's really
> disappointing to see this still going on in the Free Software community.
Defame others? Do you really think I'm out to do this? See point, above.
I don't like these conversations as much as I don't like banging my head
against brick walls, so I'll probably stop here, or as close to here as
<Styx> Quoth the raven, /ignore