gnupic: GNU LIB for PIC
Subject:
Re: GNU LIB for PIC
From:
####@####.#### (Byron A Jeff)
Date:
16 Jul 2002 13:12:39 -0000
Message-Id: <200207161259.g6GCxkV06053@cleon.cc.gatech.edu>
How in the heck did we get here? I'm on one of my favorite mailing lists and
all of a sudden it turns into gnu.misc.discuss!
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 10:43:49PM -0500, Kevin L. Pauba wrote:
> > And it particularly annoys me to think Microsoft hijacked the hard work
> > of BSD programmers by using the code of the ftp client, supplying it
> > with their operating system, and never compensating the project in any
> > way.
> >
> > Every work provided under the BSD license is at risk of this type of
> > piracy (in my opinion, Microsoft is the biggest pirate around).
>
> One of the explicit philosophies of the BSD license is that you can
> use the code however you want. You're not required to chase down the
> author years later, you don't have to worry about license taining
> for other code files. You can simply pick up the code and go.
Most of the above seems to be a non sequitur:
* With the GPL you can pick up the code and go.
* With the GPL you're not required to chase down the author years later.
The GPL explicitly facilitates you not having to chase the author down.
Everything the author wanted you to have you already have in your hands.
The GPL doesn't have a clause that stipulates that you must give back
changes to the author (though RMS did think about putting that into the GPL).
Now to the other two:
* With the GPL you can use the code however you want. Note the verb 'use'.
The restrictions come in when you chose new verbs, specifically 'modify'
and 'distribute'. The only restriction is that you give the folks that
you distribte to the same rights that you have. I cannot figure out for
the life of me why that is such a difficult concept. Why is it so important
for modifiers and distributors to be able to get code with a certain level
of rights, and then want to distribute code with less than that same set?
* 'Tait' is derogotory. GPL license extension only occurs in two situation:
when you attempt to incorporate GPL code with other code i.e. 'modification'
or when you write code that explicitly uses a GPL (not LGPL) library.
Again the same argument applies: why should you have the right to restrict
access to something that you were specifically given access to?
>
> I'd much rather see known conforming-to-standards code out there than
> the buggy reimplementation of the month, personally.
And we end with the ad-hominem attack. Linux, which is primarily GPL based,
is one of the most stable and standard conforming pieces of code available
anywhere in the world. The only buggy reimplementations are those who figure
that the only way to get ahead is to create artificial scarcity.
So I'll end with an analogy. The GPL is analogous to being able to get a 50
story skyscraper for no money. The only restrictions are twofold: You must
show anyone that asks how to get their own skyscraper, and if you build any
additional floors you have to share those plans.
BSD advocates would spend all of their time complaining about the fact that
they cannot get tenents for their 'no cost' skyscraper.
I end with a lyric from the 'Pocohontas' song "Colors of the Wind":
"Come roll in all the riches all around you,
And for once, never wonder what they're worth."
BAJ
