Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 01:29:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in>, <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Stallman now claims authorship of Linux Message-ID: <20010419222529.C7035-100000@blues.jpj.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010419120602.043f14b0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I've read the eCOS license carefully. It does not require you to distribute > the source for drivers, etc. which you link into Cygnus' product. The GPL > does. In section 3.7 it says: You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with other code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Code. which sounds to me like it means exactly that. > >The Red Hat stock for which the company was sold was worth $674 million at > >the time (about $75 million now). > > That's right: the stock was inflated by a stock market mania which has > not yet fully self-corrected. Red Hat was spending its stockholders' > money -- and paid too much for Cygnus. I suppose the "mania" only pertains to Cygnus, not the other companies I mentioned? Generating that kind of excitement about your company is a success. > >What's unethical about it? > > It is unethical to use the GPL on one's software or to promote its > use or proliferation. The reason for this is simple: the GPL is > designed to hurt people who have done nothing wrong. The first > principle of any code of ethics is, and must be, "do no harm." > The GPL, and its malicious intent, clearly violate that principle. If you contracted with Rahul to make changes to gnucash for him, the only people involved would be you and he. If your changed gnucash would harm him, presumably he wouldn't have asked for it. Earlier you seemed to be saying that you would be unable to get paid adequately for the work, so I suppose you feel that you'd be hurting yourself. I gather that you think it would be more advantageous for you if you provided Rahul with a customized version of a BSD-licensed or MIT-licensed accounting package, giving him only the binary. Looking at http://freshmeat.net/browse/787/ I don't see any suitable candidat, so perhaps you'd have to start from scratch. Would you then release the source for your general-purpose accounting program under the BSD or X license, keeping only the Rahul-specific parts secret so you could profit from it? Why not keep the whole of the source to yourself, so you could sell the general-purpose program too? Surely there's that temptation. If you're not willing to give Rahul, under the limitations of the GPL, the code which he wants to pay you to write, why should other programmers provide you--who have done nothing for them--with their code under a much less restrictive license? The benefits to them (that come to mind) are: - they get a chance to practice their programming skills. - their reputation is improved by having their work in the public eye. - they are leaving a legacy. - they feel good about being generous to you. - they can point to your product and say proudly, "I wrote that." - can point to you and say, "I helped him make a profit." - have your blessing. If Rahul continues to use gnucash, the gnucash authors: - have a chance to practice their programming skills. - improve their reputations by having their work in the public eye. - are leaving a legacy. - feel good about being generous to Rahul. - can point to gnucash and say proudly, "I wrote that." - can point to Rahul and say, "I helped him make a profit." - receive the blessing of Saint Stallman. From their point of view, it seems to be seven of one and 0.583 dozen of the other. > >If the GPL didn't exist, people would choose, or make up, > >something else that likely would not suit you either. > > They'd likely use the MIT X license or BSD license. More likely, they'd choose a license more similar to the GPL, one which discourages or forbids binary-only distribution of derived works, such as the MPL, QPL, Artistic License, Nethack General Public License, Ricoh Source Code Public License, or SISSL. Of course, my proposition was silly. Neither the GPL nor these other licenses is going to disappear. -- Trevor Johnson http://jpj.net/~trevor/gpgkey.txt 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?20010419222529.C7035-100000>