Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Joe Butler Date : Tue Aug 23 2005 06:01 pm "Arthur J. O'Dwyer" wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.60-041.0508231122470.3795@unix44.andrew.cmu.edu... > > 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 .