[nycbug-talk] Re: wasabi

[alex at pilosoft.com]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Isaac Levy wrote:

> > software is a good thing, and that people who use my software should
> > be forced to release their changes, I use GPL.
> 
> Cool- but how free is free in that case?  You really want to force users
> of your free software to give it back to you?
Yes, very much so. They enjoy fruit of my labor, they have to give
something back to me. In other words, I force software freedom onto my
users, whether they like it or not.

> > If I want to make money off my software, I release under commercial
> > restrictive license.
> 
> Sure, a restrictive commercial license is fine- but if you want to make
> money off your software, yet be able to keep it for the long- haul?  
> (i.e. ever had someone force you to buy your own software back?)
I don't understand what are you asking here. License is not the same as 
selling the software outright. If I want to sell a license, I still own it 
and can sell it again.

> Couldn't a BSD license let you freely do both?  And perhaps even,
> wouldn't it be nice if a commercial vendor could freely release software
> that has lost it's market value (knowing of course, that it's not
> violating any license agreements for any code it acquired as a closed
> product)?
> 
> (e.g. I'd sure love to have the source for a number of legacy commercial
> apps [namely- PaintWorksPlus for MacIIgs], but who knows what kind of
> copyright trail the source could have which forces it to be
> mothballed...
If this is the case (it is based on some commercial software which can't 
be released), it cannot be released under BSD license either. Again, to 
put a license on anything, you need to have clear copyright. If you don't 
have copyright, you can't release it.

> >> Though to really put my mouth where my heart is, I'm a pretty firm
> >> believer that the GPL is a sort of fascist, absolutist freedom for
> >> software.  I believe the authors, and the spirit of the GPL, values
> >> source code and machine cycles, far more than human life and
> >> liberties. With that, I tend to simply see machines and code as
> >> extensions of human beings, and disagree with the GPL.
> > I value time I spent writing code. I want to be compensated for it.
> 
> But Alex, don't you primarily run a service business?
I do lots of things. If I release software that that is helpful to run my
business - I frankly want someone to contribute back to me if they have
made improvements, so it can help me run my business better.

> > Either by being paid by licensee (commercial license), or by forcing
> > other people to release their improvements to my software (which
> > hopefully will be somewhat useful to me).
> >
> > I don't see place for a BSD license. I'm not *that* altruistic, I
> > guess.
> 
> I don't see the alltruism in BSD licensing, I see respect for
> differences between cultures of creating.
BSD license is all about altruism. "Here it is, the fruit of my hard work.  
enjoy it, make money from it, rape it with a nightstick, I don't care".

> Tell me why I'm wrong?  Or am I?  Alex- as you are here backing the GPL,
> with your comments, are you agreeing with me that the GPL is fascist in
> how it forces absolute freedom?
I think fascism is a strong word. GPL forces freedom. Without GPL, we
wouldn't have so much free software. (read up on cases where Apple was
forced to share improvements to gcc, which otherwise would remain closed). 
It is a good thing.