[nycbug-talk] Re: wasabi

[alex at pilosoft.com]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Marc Spitzer wrote:

> > Yes, GPL is infectious. You want to build your software on my free
> > software? your software will have to be free too. You don't like it?
> > well, then bugger off and don't touch my software.
> 
> Your GPLed software is not free for any applicable definition I have
> come across in a dictionary.  The FSF and now you are claiming something
> that is contradicted by trying to compair the word "free", as used in
> standard english, to the draconian encumberances inforced by the GPL.
You are splitting hairs. 

As you should surely know, in GPL, free stands for freedom. Freedom of end 
user to modify and redistribute software. Yes, in fact, to achieve this 
freedom it is necessary to forbid *you* from denying this said freedom to 
them. 

Are we clear now?

> > Note the touches = "build on" not merely "use".
> >
> > Note that this is not that much different from a proprietary license that
> > doesn't give you royalty-free redistribution rights. You license a library
> > (say, report writing). Now, for each 'derived product' (as in, complete
> > package with the report writer compiled in) you are obligated to pay
> > royalty. And even if you have royalty-free distribution rights, they
> > usually come with strings attached. So, all restrictive licenses are
> > infectuous by design.
> 
> that is not so at all.  the gpl makes you loose rights over your code.
> commercial licencing allows me to keep rights over mine.  And if you
> want more rights give me more money.
But it *IS NOT YOUR CODE*.  Capiche? 

You base your product on my code, you have to distribute your code. And 
that's the way I like it. Because frankly, without *my code* there 
wouldn't be *your code*. So, IT IS NOT YOUR CODE.

> > GPL restricts you (as user of my software) from restricting freedom of
> > *others* to enjoy fruit of our combined labor (mine as original developer
> 
> the above sounds like it came from 1984.
> 
> > and your as contributor). Again, in my eyes (as a person who writes
> > software), its a good thing. For someone who is a user of my software,
> > who wants to profit from my work, its not a good thing.
> 
> You really need to look up the word free and freedom, in a non fsf
> dictionary.
Please, be my guest.

> > BSD is not infectious - because it is really limitation of liability
> > plus release into public domain, not really a license.
> 
> No it is a licence, just a free one.
Talking to you reminds me of trying to discuss things with Perry. 

-alex