Look, GPL is *designed* to keep me (and you) from enclosing copywritten
material. I can make a little money packaging GPL commodities but any effort
I make that extends or otherwise depends on a GPLed good is likely wasted in
economic terms. My work is GPLed, if I distribute it the entities to whom I
distribute it have a right to source and to transfer that source under any
terms they like.
Greed may not be good, but it is necessary.
Arguably it is an economic *bad* when huge cultural or intelectual resources
are locked up for years, decades, or forever is the service of private gain.
What GPL does is to bar huge -- well significant -- amounts of cultural
capital for the purpose of private gain for decades, if not indefinitely.
True, if I can track back the entire chain of contributors to a GPLed
commodity then I can contract for each to supply his or her own contribution
on commercial terms.
But in many cases this is not practical. GPL is designed so that over time
getting a clear commercially viable contract for any significant GPL product
becomes virtually impossible thanks to the tangled web of contributions and
dependencies.
GPL is a lovely anarchist tool -- it is hardly surprising that it is hostile
to capitalism.
Unfortunately, if you want economic progress greed is a better engine than
mere pride, laziness, or impatience -- and altruism barely merits
consideration.
On Monday 30 September 2002 10:20 pm, Derek Neighbors wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-09-30 at 21:40, der.hans wrote:
> > Am 30. Sep, 2002 schwätzte Michelle Lowman so:
> > > 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$
> >
> > It's not more viral than the licenses from the proprietary vendors. In
> > fact, less so because it doesn't 'taint' you. The original license for
> > UNIX source from AT&T prohibited people from ever working on similar
> > projects.
>
> I think viral is bad terminology in general, much the way 'pirate' is.
> 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.
>
> > Or you have to convince the owner of the GPLd code to let you use it
> > under a different license.
> >
> > 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.
(text/plain)