[lug] GPL/Open Source License Questions

[rm at fabula.de]

On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 09:42:33PM -0600, Philip Cooper wrote:
> 
> This is a great place to discuss this.  If you want a barrel full of
> license lawyers with loopholes you can post to
> license-discuss at opensource.org.  Anyway here's my $.02
> 
> Why GPL? 
> 
> > Now I am not so sure that I am not violating the GPL.
> 
> That's the problem with GPL. with LGPL and bsd python mozilla zope and
> plenty of others to choose from why GPL?  
> 
> Wait...I'll answer (for some anyway)...it's the one everyone's heard
> of and everyone knows it drives Linux.  GPL is good for things like
> OS's and core systems where you always want better things and the
> latest fixes disseminated widely as possible.  Beyond that it is more
> of a hinderance to open source computing than a help ...slight pause
> while I don my asbestos undies...Far too many people release under GPL
> without thinking about the consequences.

Ok, this is a very dangerous subject prone to flame wars (just had an
uggly one on comp.lang.lisp), but let me add some comments from some-
one who basically puts all code under GPL (and makes this an require-
ment in negotiations with customers): 

I didn't pick GPL because it was the most-often mentioned licence.
I think for my (and my customers) needs it's the best and fairest
licence. Why? Because it guarantees contributors that their con-
tributions will not be (ab)used by the original copyright holder.
Or, to take the fish stew analogy: you put something into the 
pot, you get some stew back.

> Apple could not have
> developed os-X based on Linux.  
 
Care to explain? What hinders you (read: anybody) to run a pro-
prietary display system on top of a free (aifs[1]) OS kernel?

> GPL tells a user of the opensource
> what he can't do with it.  

Hmm, the way i see this is: it's most restricting for the developer.
Why is it that in most discussions about GPL/BSD etc. the involved
parties end up talking as if the (re)user of code is "the" user.
For my customers (which happen to be the end users of my apps) GPL
has only benefits. The can rest assured that someone will be able
to fix their problems even if i won't want to/can't etc. There's a
good chance that the app will improve by other user's contributions
(yes, that actually _is_ happening). GPL's restrictions are hardest
for me: i give up total control over my code. But that's the price
i need to pay for being part of a code sharing comunity. It's up
to the individual to join or not. 

> It stifles the use of the software by
> anyone who is concerend about their use or potential use far in the
> future of some derivative of the code to have a valuable product.  

Why? To me there seems to be not a single point of uncertainty about
the possible allowed uses. And, at least in my work situation, the value
of a product is meassured by it's usability (reliability etc.).
Licencing doesn't contribute to that.


> As Apple concluded, you are better off with a bsd style license or
> python type license that lets the user do whatever he wants. 

Apple shouldn't care what licence is better for me! 
:-)
BSD licence shure was better for them -- otherwise the wouldn't have
used it. For the user? Hmm, can i recompile OS X on my PC, Alpha or
Sparc? Weeeeeell, kind of, except, major important parts are missing.
So, Apple took the fish and run ...
Now, don't understand me wrong, i'm not saying this is bad or even
unethical, they did what the original code authors allowed them to do.
The view of the FSF (as far as i understand it) is: it's far too tempting
to just only take (with the best intentions. "Well contribute later ...").
Look at similar "sharing" projects in the "real world" and how, without
some regulating rules, they tend to get abused after a while.

> THAT's
> open IMHO -- not RMS telling me that I can't use it if I want to sell
> something unrelated but having some small part based on GPL code.  The
> license is viral, infecting all code it's used in.  Opinions vary, but
> any not avoid the confilct.

Yes, at some point this is a political discussion: does freedom need to
be regulated or can it rest sole on the responsibility of the individual.

 Just my 0.002$
   Ralf Mattes

> 
> > Opinions?
> 
> My take: use a real open source license, not GPL
> Opinionated enough? 
> 
> Oops, just re-read your opening...you wanted wisdom...sorry :-)
> 
> -- 
> Phil
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> Join us on IRC: lug.boulder.co.us port=6667 channel=#colug