On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 12:56 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Les wrote:
>>>>> Les' mission is to save us from the evils of GPL license.
> There are several "les"s on this list. I would like to be referred to
> as Lesh to help all of
Yes, I was going to point out that I haven't been in the Navy and was
probably confused with one of the others in that respect.
----
I think that was Ricky suffering from flash back.
----
Regarding the GPL, though, it is all a matter of religion. Mine is that
making something deliberately not interoperate with something else,
whether by refusing to publish an interface spec, refusing to use
standard protocols, or licensing in such a way that interoperation (or
distributing working components together)is prohibited will harm random
people and is thus pure evil.
----
you are of course calling the Linux kernel evil - notwithstanding that
the intent was always to restrict the ability of commercial interests so
that the source and the endless improvements upon always remained
available to all users. Of course this is unlike something like a BSD
license which permits absorption and further development without any
requirement to release their improvements.
You are entitled to your opinion though
----
Licensing in ways that have a cost per instance or per user may be
moderately evil but that still lets people make their own choices based
on individual merits. Taking that choice away is pure evil.
----
Curious perspective...the only problem that I have with this is your
characterization itself.
----
For standalone programs the GPL doesn't necessarily have these
evil
effects. For things that should be usable in cooperative efforts but
can't because of license restrictions, it does. There's no accounting
for religions, though, and no doubt others believe the harm is justified
by something or other.
----
Seeing as how the entirety of the Linux kernel is GPL license and to
change now would require a complete abandonment of the current kernel
code and start from scratch, your point - however it might be made is
entirely moot. The license chosen for Linux kernel development was of
course Linus's and others who contribute code to the kernel are
necessarily bound by the GPL license and of course, they can choose not
to contribute code.
Of course the thing that makes your rich is also the thing that makes
you poor and vice versa. The Linux kernel code, like all GPL license
code, will always be available to continue, fork, examine, etc. and
commercial enhancement of GPL code must necessarily be released in
source as required...I feel rich.
Craig