GPL Infectiousness

[Derek Neighbors]

--=-mK7iJlnBGVRFCQzvGUnD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, 2002-09-30 at 21:40, der.hans wrote:
> Am 30. Sep, 2002 schw=E4tzte Michelle Lowman so:
>=20
> > I think Bob is referring to the fact that proprietary developers won't
> > use GPL'd libraries because then their code would be subject to the
> > GPL.And there is where the "viral" nature of the GPL comes in. M$
>=20
> It's not more viral than the licenses from the proprietary vendors. In fa=
ct,
> less so because it doesn't 'taint' you. The original license for UNIX sou=
rce
> from AT&T prohibited people from ever working on similar projects.

I think viral is bad terminology in general, much the way 'pirate' is.=20
However, the truth of the matter is that how can a license that GIVES
MORE freedom than COPYRIGHT be less "infectous" than a license that is
MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN COPYRIGHT.

An example, people think the GPL needs a "click through", but the truth
is it gives you MORE rights than copyright does.  The only restrictions
really have to do with distribution and if you distribute something
ignoring the license you have violated copyright in the first place.  (I
hope that makes sense for those not familiar with such things)

Proprietary licenses are so "infectous" that they take away rights
afforded to you by copyright.  So much so that they can restrict fair
use and other items. =20

> Or you have to convince the owner of the GPLd code to let you use it unde=
r a
> different license.
>=20
> The proprietary vendors are trying to make it look like the GPL is
> unreasonable when it's actually their licenses that are unreasonable. We
> shoudn't be defending the GPL, they should be defending their practices.

Yes.  This was point I am trying to make above.  The GPL might be less
'free' (as in restrictions) than say an MIT or a BSD, but its WAY more
free than anything proprietary.

> Don't worry. I know you're in favor of Free Software. We can still learn
> through discussing the topic, though.

Absolutely.
=20
--=20
Derek Neighbors
GNU Enterprise
http://www.gnuenterprise.org
derek@gnue.org

Was I helpful?  Let others know:
 http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=3Ddneighbo

--=-mK7iJlnBGVRFCQzvGUnD
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA9mTCyHb99+vQX/88RAg1lAJ0eLTlMztWCDekRtHrJjgXKPfxHewCfYJPI
fwqgOETrr3LsT0wb+2x41zY=
=vhD9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-mK7iJlnBGVRFCQzvGUnD--