> As Derek clearly pointed out, there is NO licensed software (well, ok -
> very little ) on any of my machines. I like it that way. If I should ever
> develop the need and the talent to modify any of my software and
> redistribute it, even freely to the members of PLUG, or should I give (or
> sell) copies of that software, only then am I faced with complying with the
> terms of the GPL. - --
> Jim
Hi, everyone. As Hans pointed out, I am Kyle from EMR. Now on to the issue
at hand.
The GPL does not apply only at the moment you redistribute a program. It
must apply the first time the original author distributes a program. Take
the following example:
I write the finest program the world has ever seen, called "Kyle's Greatest
Duck Calculator and Redivisibilator. (KGDCR). Jim happens to be getting his
doctorate degree CompSci with a specialty in programs that do Duck
Calculation and Redivisibilation. I release my program under the GPL (though
it is so great maybe I should have charged for it ;). The knowledge that Jim
can gain from eyeballing my source code, and the algorithms involved in KGDCR
could be earth shattering. Without distributing my code, and if the
statement that the software is unlicensed (for him) until he personally does
so is valid, the KGDCR is public domain (public domain defined here as
software with no license whatsoever), Jim can gain insight that he otherwise
would not have and not credit me (assuming he was the only person who has
seen the code so far so no one caught it). I realize that there are a lot of
assumptions in that sentence but none of them are outlandish (other than me
writing such great software). Once something enters the public domain, it
cannot be retrieved. Saying something is unlicensed until you distribute it
is a "Schroedinger's Cat" approach to software licensing, and I, for one,
would like to believe that the KGDCR is not a dead cat. Because it really is
a great program, you should try it some time ;)
My second point would be that Click-through on GPL software differs greatly
from the "signing for a cash purchase" analogy. When I buy something for $1
at the grocery store, I can open a stand outside and sell it again to someone
walking in for $2. If the product was GPL'd, I would have to add value to it
before I could charge for it. The store relinquishes all rights to products
when I purchase them (cash, credit, check, anything). I do not relinquish
all my rights to my software when I release it under the GPL. You cannot
merely compile my open code and sell it. That is the difference. Just
because I give you MORE freedoms with *PL'd code does not mean I give them
ALL to you. THAT is public domain.
Just my view of the world, yours my differ, but don't expect me to live there
;0
Kyle Faber
(text/plain)