Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 02:00:59 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Karlson <karlj000@unbc.ca> To: "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@blarg.net> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0112200149520.29122-100000@ugrad.unbc.ca> In-Reply-To: <b2itb2y1nh.tb2@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > ... We could snag a copy of GCC before the "license change" and just > > continue on with it under the GPL. Isn't that the point > > of the GPL - to restrict the ability of someone to do something > > proprietary, even if it is Stallman himself? > Please tell us how the GPL restricts the ability of someone to do > something "proprietary" any more than the BSD licence does (or the MIT > license, which I suppose RMS knew before creating the GPL, does)? > I don't think you can, because that isn't the point of the GPL. Okay, "proprietary" is perhaps not a good word, but I still can't think of a better one. What I was getting at is that even if Stallman were to change the license on his "free software," users would always have the ability to grab an older version and fork development at that point. In that sense, the GPL (as well as the BSD and MIT) licenses prevent someone from pulling some stunt like getting everyone hooked then changing the agreement - which sounds suspiciously like a tactic used by some large software companies. But because the code was open previously, there is no such thing as a forced "vendor lock-in." > I think it's fair to refer to something being more proprietary or less, > as an idiomatic way of saying that the proprietor has withheld his > proprietary rights (distribution, etc) under more or less stringent Yes, that's sort of what I was getting at. > conditions, but please don't engage in GNU-speak like Bruce Perens who > says (in the book "Open Sources...") "The GPL's definition of a > proprietary program is any program with a license that doesn't give you > as many rights as the GPL." (He's a principle author of GNU-speak, but > this derives from RMS. BTW, the body of the GPL doesn't even use the > word and the rest of it just uses it in passing. One can't believe > everything one reads, even in a book. Also, even closed source licenses > could give you as many rights as the GPL does; they would just have > different conditions.) And "proprietary" doesn't even mean "closed". > "Closed" does, though; people should use it more often. Agreed. Even the fact that he claims something that "doesn't give you as many rights as the GPL" as being prorietary is not very good. Does that mean that the BSDL is also not proprietary, because it actually gives you more rights? I don't think they would agree. As I've stated before, I don't have a particular love of the GPL, and I actually somewhat have a distaste for it. (Your message reads as if you're trying to educate me on the GPL, but I am aware of what it's about.) PS - I've seen that "Open Sources" book around a few times, and I thought it might be an interesting read, but I've always thought it's probably pretty Linux and GPL preachy. Is it actually worth my time to read? -- Jeremy The difference between legal separation and divorce is that legal separation gives the man time to hide his money. 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?Pine.LNX.4.21.0112200149520.29122-100000>