The problem with GPL is that it's viral and broadly worded.
1) Standard proprietary copyright is ok. I can either purchase or rent
arbitary rights to anyone elses intellectual property ... at least in theory.
If the owner of critical property refuses to sell on reasonable terms I (or
we) can apply pressure. If it effects enough people a government could (in
theory) condemn the property under eminent domain.
2) Straight public domain, Berkeley-Apache copyright, and academic publication
are ok. I just use the unencumbered property, adding citations as needed.
If that isn't good enough then I patent all unallocated applications or
embrace and extend the part of intellectual commons in question. Voila!
Free IP! As easy as taking land from aboriginal populations.
3) GPL is not ok. I can't buy it. Sure maybe I can buy a non-GPL encumbered
1st generation of the software. However, after its been un-enclosable common
intellectual domain for a few years one of those @#$% syndico-anarchist
hacker punks is going to refuse to sell some critical piece of code. If I
reverse engineer, or black box the fragments function the punk might sue me
based on the anti-reverse engineering laws I lobbied for.
Furthermore, the code was put into GPL *for* the public good so the government
is unlikely to exercise eminent domian. I can't safely extend and embrace
GPLed intellectual property to render it effectively proprietary--the licence
was designed to prevent enclosure. Of course I might be able to get a
patent, but who wants a patent that either depends on, incorporates or
extends a domain of knowledge with substantial GPLed solution space.
===
GPL does not mean that a GPLed property cannot be used for personal gain.
However, a GPLed property cannot safely be rendered back into exclusively
private property nor can GPLed property be safely incorporated into
proprietary property, lest its virus grant public usefruct of private
property.
Yes, property owners *can* dual license a property (or portion of a property)
under GPL. Unfortunately, as more legal persons contribute to a code-base it
becomes geometrically more difficult to secure a title to the code that is
*not* GPL encumbered.
=========
Question:
Postgresql has Berkeley literal and Apache style clauses in its license.
However, to compile your own copy you need gmake. Let's suppose SUN wants to
sell a proprietary, commercial version of Postgresql, distributing only
selected source code. You can modify distributed source code, but the EULA
clearly states that in doing so SUN automatically gets a non-exclusive, but
comprehensive, license to any extension you create and distribute. (In
effect, if you improve SUN's Postgres you own all the property rights to the
extension ... and so does SUN.)
RS and the FSF say that's not good enough. Furthermore Postgresql *depends*
on the GPLed product gmake. Therefore they argue that SUNs Postgresql is
GPLed (unless they switch their Postgresql product off of any GPL
dependencies, so no gmake, no gcc.... PS: I know that GPL explicitly
excuses products of a compilation that used GPL tools from the GPL virus.
For the sake of argument imagine Great GPL--GGPL that does not grant this
exception. For GGPL the virus applies if there is any dependency or
incorporation combined with effective proprietary control [that is, third
parties cannot infect (or dis-infect) parties of the first or second part].)
Now SUN is forced to do two things. First it has to wean its SUNygres off of
gmake, gcc, and other (G)GPLed tools. Oh well, SUN can afford that, just
skip a product cycle to make the fixes. What really hurts is when the FSF
refuses to accept compensation (maybe it *can't*--if it isn't authorized to
represent all the contributors to the code-base). SUN is forced to open
contamined proprietary code included in the SUNygres proprietary distribution
thus exposing trade secrets.
NOW do you see how *EVIL* your (G)GPL can do?
On Tuesday 23 July 2002 10:24 pm, Derek Neighbors wrote:
> > I just read *another* person who ought to know better
> > referring to how the GPL "destroys intellectual
> > property." Can someone please work up a presentation
> > for IF2 on the different types of Free Software
> > licenses?
>
> A great way to argue the "destroys intellectual property" debate is beat
> them with their own poor use of terminology.
>
> Say how does the GPL destroy 'trademarks' again? (after they say thats
> not what they meant)
> Say how does it kill 'non-compete agreements? (after they say thats not
> what they meant)
> Say how does it overstep the bounds of a 'non-disclosure agreement'?
> (after they say thats not what they meant)
> Say how does it kill exactly does it kill 'patents' again? (after they
> possibly stretch for ways and say thats not what they really mean)
> Say how does it kill 'copyright' again? (at which point they will
> probbably pontificate for some time and then you rebuttal with so let me
> get this straight. The GPL relies on copyright to be enforced, yet you
> say it kills copyright, therefore it must not be enforceable so why are
> you so worried again?)
>
> At which point you say I'm not sure what other 'intellectual property'
> you think its destroy maybe you could enlighten me. ;)
>
> (of course this is best done with your most sarcastic attitude) ;)
>
> > I mean, it's so frustrating. Don't like the GPL?
> > Fine. Ignore it. Just fall back to plain old copyright.
>
> Yes I find it VERY funny people try to say GPL is so horrid when it
> grants MORE rights than normal copyright intended.
>
> > Want to modify it? Want to give it to someone else?
> > Hmmm, well, OK, but only if you agree to some
> > conditions. I'm not forcing you to go beyond
> > traditional copyright, but if you want to, here's
> > what you have to agree to.
>
> People are funny sometimes. :)
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't
> post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
>
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)