The Failure of the GPL

[Mike Schwartz]

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Lisa Kachold <lisakachold at obnosis.com>wrote:

>
> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:41 AM, Chris Gehlker <canyonrat at mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Interesting article even if the title is a bit of a troll
>> <http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1390172&ns=16164>
>> --
>> Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time. I think
>> I've forgotten this before. -Steven Wright, comedian (b. 1955)
>> --
>>
>
> I loved NeXT computers!  Good article!
> --
> (623)239-3392
> (503)754-4452 www.obnosis.com
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - [...]
>

interesting.
I read the article;
The point near the end of "page 4" seems to be, that maybe
the GPL never should have been so strict, about a certain case:
namely, the case where the only "distributing" being done, is of
some un-modified code, that is being offered gratis.

I think this is the case where it satisfies both of 2 conditions:
[1]  no source code changes were made by whomever is doing
      the "distributing" (relative to [= "since"] the GPL'ed version
      that  was "already" being distributed, before);
[2]  no money involved.

The point seems to be, that for this case, the GPL should allow
the "distributing" to take place, since it is not doing any harm;
Due to [1], the ["un-modified"] source code, "has" to be available
from someone else (whoever created the current version, by
making the last change);  so, no problem there.

...although, the recipient of the software, might have some
confusion (well, some ignorance) regarding how to get the
source code.  But actually, come to think of it, that's where
software revision "version identifiers" (being annunciated
when the binary program is getting executed) could come
in handy. They are intended for (well, at least one of their
purposes, is:) achieving just such a goal -- avoiding
confusion about which version of software, is being run.

In the example that they gave near the end of "page 4",
it was clear that the person to whom the software was being distributed, was
not technically adept enough to compile
things on his own;  but if they have the version number,
and the URL from which the source code can be downloaded,
then maybe they *are* being provided, (effectively), the ability
to obtain the source code.  Hmmm...

and as for [2], I forgot why [2] makes any difference;  but it
was present in the example they gave near the end of page 4,
(at least I thought it was;  or was I just reading something "in"
to the story, that was not actually written there?)
...so I just assumed that it [2] was relevant, and was not just
thrown in there to confuse things.
(hmm... does [2] matter?  and if so, why?)
-- 
Mike Schwartz
Glendale  AZ
schwartz at acm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/pipermail/plug-discuss/attachments/20090910/dd6175b6/attachment.htm