Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Arthur J. O'Dwyer
Date : Tue Aug 23 2005 12:37 pm


On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Joe Butler wrote:
>
   (In the following response, I'm paraphrasing what I understand to be 
Stallman's position on the matter --- what I write isn't necessarily what 
I personally believe. Personally, I'm ambivalent but leaning toward 
Stallman's view.)

> So, what's the reasoning behind these licences that don't allow a commercial
> (closed source) apps from using them?

   Software should be free. If Microsoft (for example) distributes an 
operating system that the user can't tweak, check for security holes, or 
give to his friends, that's just plain wrong. This kind of exploitative 
software needs to be stamped out permanently --- one simple way to do that 
is make lots of good /free/ software, which will drive out the bad. And by 
putting everything under the GPL, we ensure that the bad software makers 
will never be able to come back, since they can't pull the same 
"steal the code, tweak it, and release it as closed source" tricks they 
did back in the '80s.

> In once sense, if the idea behind the GPL, etc. is to benefit others, this
> is a limitation that will reduce the number of people that can actually
> benefit from it.

   So? People shouldn't use closed-source software, because it's wrong. If 
the GPL makes it harder to develop closed-source software, that is a 
/benefit/, not a drawback.
   So it'll take longer for the free world to catch up to the evil 
closed-source guys. So what? You can't wait two extra years for your free 
e-mail client?

>  A closed source app is not going to open its source just
> so it can use some GPL.  If the source was allowed to be used by all,
> without the restrictions on commercial apps, that would benefit a lot more
> people, wouldn't it?

   No, because then Microsoft (for example) would take it, improve it, and 
release the improved version as closed-source. Everybody loses.

> You'd have commercial apps integrating GPL stuff that people would buy if
> they offered something that the free alternatives didn't offer.  You have
> all the free stuff, just as if the commercial app didn't exist (except that
> you might have fewer users due to some of them prefering the commercial
> alternative).  You'd still have the open source 'community' that could
> emulate the commercial app, if they wanted to.

   By the same argument, it's okay if I murder a bunch of people, because 
there will still be a living 'community' just as if I weren't killing 
people. That's just stupid. Murder is wrong, no matter how many people you 
/don't/ kill.

   (Tangent: Stallman uses the murder-is-wrong analogy to ridicule those 
programmers who complain that they can't write free software because they 
need a commercial salary. "So it's okay to kill someone and take their 
money, because you need money?" No! A big salary doesn't excuse 
wrongdoing! And if you really can't make an honest living in /free/ 
software design, you should go do something else for a few years. Build 
houses, or become a policeman, or do something else that's not 
intrinsically immoral.)

> I think if I were producing a commercial app and wanted to use some GPL, I'd
> just write an open source wrapper around the GPL stuff and release the
> wrapper so that commercial apps were allowed to use it - the wrapper might
> be a bit of a dog to use though ;-)  Would that layer circumnavigate the
> restrictions?

   No. The GPL is highly viral, and designed to be that way, for all the 
reasons I mentioned above.

   However, releasing the original library under the LGPL would probably 
take care of your concerns. It's not nearly as viral.

HTH,
-Arthur

.