On Jan 19, 2004, at 1:23 AM, der.hans wrote: > Am 18. Jan, 2004 schw=E4tzte Chris Gehlker so: > >> On Jan 18, 2004, at 3:07 PM, der.hans wrote: > >> If they are just using it 'as is' then what they could provide to the >> community is no more than what I have already provided. > > Well, they could go to some effort and help improve it. If they're=20 > expected > to give back, then it shouldn't matter if they've needed to make=20 > changes. I'm afraid I simply don't understand here. To 'give back' you must have=20= something to give. What are you suggesting? > >>> Also, what changes have to be given back? Do the configuration=20 >>> changes >>> have >>> to be given back? Do the changes to a db such as the records stored >>> have to >>> be given back? Requiring entities to give back all changes seems >>> problematic >>> to me. >> >> Nope. I don't know of any license that requires anything but source >> code to be given back. > > Well, the MySQL guys think that distributing MySQL ( binary and source=20= > ) > along with proprietary programs that 'connect' to MySQL using network=20= > or > socket connections is a violation of the GPL because those programs = are > modifying the program. The guy I talked to at LISA claims RMS has = given > MySQL his blessing on this interpretation. There is a real issue here that merits its own discussion. Both the GPL=20= and the RPL, as well as most of the other languages were formulated in=20= a world where the distinction between integration and mere aggregation=20= was fairly easy to make. That world is rapidly disappearing. I love to=20= listen to people who think they understand the difference between the=20 GPL and the LGPL and then ask "What happens if all the code is Ruby?" > >> Well, it's an extreme example but it makes a point. If I come up with >> pace-maker software that extends someone's life for a couple of years >> and during that time one of the beneficiaries develops a modification >> that extends people's lives another couple of years he certainly does >> have an obligation to release that modification. He simply can't say >> "No I think the world is too crowded so I'm going to keep this >> modification to myself." That would be unethical and also illegal in >> most (maybe all) countries. > > Why would it be illegal? Under the RPL it would be, I think. Under the=20= > GPL, > though, that would be legal. What if he was extending his life only so=20= > that > he could watch "Soylent Green" over and over again? :) I don't think it would be illegal under the RPL either because it would=20= be personal use. But it would be illegal under all the laws that=20 require people give aid in life threatening situations if they can do=20 so without endangering themselves. There was a great article by some=20 philosopher, which I can't find right now, where he pointed out that=20 geeks tend to go off in their hermetic little world when they get into=20= discussions of software distribution. I think some of that's happening=20= here. Hoarding life saving technology is very bad karma. Trust me on this.=20 The fact that it is not a GPL violation is not evidence that it is good=20= karma. It is merely evidence that the GPL is very flawed as a guide to=20= ethical behavior. > > The RPL also has problems because manufacturers usually can't limit=20 > what > customers do with products. Can TiVo sue everyone for all the TiVo=20 > mods that > happen? Actually in the case of something like TiVo the GPL and the RPL have=20 the same effect. There is no requirement for flesh and blood persons to=20= release their code under the RPL. That requirement falls only on=20 organizations. So you would need some very artificial situation such as=20= a hotel chain advertising "Stay with us and watch TV on our specially=20 modified TiVos" to have a case where the license would make a=20 difference. > > I agree that it would be good for those who've modified Free Software=20= > to > release their changes. =46rom whom are they taking freedoms, though, = if=20 > they > hoard them? The point of Free Software is that the person getting the=20= > code > is given the rights described in the 4 freedoms. There are no=20 > obligations > other than to extend those freedoms to whomever the code might be=20 > given. Try looking at it this way. If I release code under a BSD style license=20= the community gets the benefit of my code. This is great and I really=20 admire people who use the BSD license. But not everybody thinks that BSD style is the best. Some argue for a=20 GPL style and their argument has nothing to do with freedom for the=20 user because the user gets even more freedoms under BSD. The argument=20 for the GPL over BSD is simply that the community gets more. It gets my=20= original code plus future modifications. Now when the GPL was written, almost all code was actually produced by=20= schools or hardware vendors. Schools weren't in bed with corporations=20 to the extent that they are now and they tended to release everything=20 under a BSD style license. Hardware vendors distributed software with=20 their hardware. So the notion that the community gets more under the=20 GPL has merit. Fast forward to the present. Studies show that around 80% of the code=20 is written inside corporations by their internal IT departments. They=20 are never going to distribute this code in any form because they don't=20= want their competitors to get the binaries. So for 80% of the time, GPL=20= =3D=3D BSD. Of the remaining 20% about half is academic/hobby[1] and = about=20 half is shrink-wrap. The shrink-wrap vendor must distribute its code to=20= profit from it so for 10% of the time GPL =3D=3D RPL. So the way I see it is a good argument, maximum user freedom, can be=20 made for BSD and a good argument, maximum community benefit, can be=20 made for RPL [2]. What I can't see is a good argument for GPL. Sure=20 shrink-wrap vendors contain some convicted monopolists but non-shrink=20 wrap vendors contain companies that are convicted monopolists and=20 environmentally damaging and war profiteers u.s.v. [1] The academic/hobby stuff is divided between BSD style, GPL style=20 and shrink-wrap style in some proportion that I don't know so I'll=20 ignore it. [2] I'll concede that the argument that the GPL is GPL compatible and=20= a lot of code already GPL is sort of a good argument. It is also a good=20= argument to stop releasing GPL code because of the lock-in to a=20 suboptimal license.=