[nycbug-talk] lame...real lame Andy

[Bob Ippolito]

On Jan 12, 2005, at 14:17, Aron Roberts wrote:

> On Jan 12, 2005, at 2:13 PM, Marc Spitzer wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:47:37 -0500 (EST), Dru 
>> <dlavigne6 at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bruce then goes on to explain the intent and ramifications of the 
>>> BSD and
>>> GPL licenses. The intent of the GPL is to prevent open source code 
>>> from
>>> becoming commercialized (www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html). 
>>> This
>>> is the part that confused me, seeing all of the big software 
>>> interests are
>>> embracing GPL code left write and center. Whereas, the BSD license 
>>> doesn't
>>> place restrictions on what happens to the code i.e. it can stay open
>>> source or end up in a commercial entity.
>>
>> The gpl, IMO, is anti innovation as far as software goes.  Explain
>> this to the VC/shareholders:
>>
>> 1: you used a gpled library in your commercial app.
>> 2: one of your customers figures it out
>> 3: said customer demands all your code, using a lawyer
>> 4: puts it up on sourceforge, along with his own compiled windows 
>> binaries
>> 5: it is your only product and sales have droped off by +90%
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Bruce then explains how history is repeating itself: "The GPL is well
>>> suited for use as a commercial marketing weapon, particularly by 
>>> hardware or
>>> service companies which, similar to IBM in the late 1950s and 1960s, 
>>> profit if
>>> the cost of software is driven to zero...zero-cost software can be 
>>> used to
>>> undermine the software of a competitor and can contribute to 
>>> monopolistic
>>> behaviour. It can drive software companies out of business. It is 
>>> unclear if
>>> the current generation of open source software will have this effect 
>>> or not".
>>>
>>
>> the gpl is designed to destroy the value of software and it does a
>> very good job of doing it.
>>
>>> If this is the case, it is certainly ironic that Stallman's vision 
>>> of the
>>> ideal license is being used to promote the commercial entities he is 
>>> so
>>> strongly opposed to.
>>
>> If you look at RMS's ideal world he was a comunist, you own nothing.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but unless you modify the library you should 
> be able to link against whatever you want with no repercussions from 
> the GPL. Even then you would only be required to share your changes to 
> that library.

You are thinking of the LGPL.  The GPL exhibits the described 
properties.  Consider yourself corrected :)

> I sure like the BSD license better however I am not sure that you are 
> right in this case.

He is right!

-bob