1 |
* Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@××××××××××××××××.de) [30.06.08 10:48]: |
2 |
|
3 |
> The GPL however limits the usability of OpenSource as OSS and claims this |
4 |
> is in order to save OSS. The GPL allows GPLd software to use any kind of |
5 |
> software but disallows other OpenSource Software to use GPLd software. |
6 |
> |
7 |
The main point is that this also disallows the usage within NonOSS |
8 |
software. That's what counts. Many OSS licenses do not care about later |
9 |
closed usage, and so one backdoor is closed, where GPL code may become |
10 |
unfree. |
11 |
For me, some of the so called OSS licenses undermine the freedom and I |
12 |
don't want them to be spread anymore. BSD is the one license where |
13 |
freedom goes the step to far and is suicide. |
14 |
|
15 |
> Another big problem with the GPL is that the Free Software Foundation does not |
16 |
> care about leality in own projects. There are at least two official FSF |
17 |
> projects that did ilegally change the license of the code they use from other |
18 |
> projects. libcdio did change code taken from cdrtools from GPLv2-only to |
19 |
> GPLv2-or-any-later and vcdimager publishes code under GPL that never has been |
20 |
> put under GPL by the author. |
21 |
> |
22 |
That's not a problem of the GPL, but of the FSF. You can't blame the GPL |
23 |
for that. |
24 |
And I'm just curious: under which license was that code, which is now |
25 |
in vcdimager? |
26 |
|
27 |
> |
28 |
> > And if I wrote software, I would not want people to reuse the codeit in |
29 |
> > closed source. So GPL is the right choice for me, because of the viral |
30 |
> > and supposed non-free issue. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> If you like this, you do not need to forbid to use the software for other OSS |
33 |
> as done by the GPL. |
34 |
> |
35 |
This is a all or nothing matter, or you end up categorizing every single |
36 |
license if it fits. |
37 |
|
38 |
<overstatement> |
39 |
And remember the GPL is a virus, that wants world domination. |
40 |
</overstatement> |
41 |
|
42 |
> |
43 |
> > But remember, if more people contibute to a software project, then the |
44 |
> > license is some essential part of the collaboration. Changing it |
45 |
> > requires the consensus of *all* people who *ever* contributed to it. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> You are obviously uninformed about legal facts. In Europe as well as in the |
48 |
> USA, "minor contributors" are not given the right to decide on this. |
49 |
> |
50 |
Well, in which crude copyright law is this stated? link please. |
51 |
I think it is more a problem of the enforcement, not the laws itself. If |
52 |
you do not fight for your right, you loose it. But I agree, that in our |
53 |
society, it is a matter of money. But that is a problem in society. |
54 |
|
55 |
> > So changing a license is always cumbersome. |
56 |
> |
57 |
> Then you should be against the GPL as many GPL people take BSD code |
58 |
> and illegally add GPL tags. This may be tolerated by the authors but it is |
59 |
> still forbidden by law. |
60 |
> |
61 |
That is *again* not an issue of the GPL but of the authors, s.o., and |
62 |
the licences changers. It's a people problem. |
63 |
|
64 |
And an issue of the BSD license: I'm not quite sure, but can't you do |
65 |
anything with source code under BSD licences, as long this infamous |
66 |
copyright notice stays? |
67 |
|
68 |
What can happen to BSD code is shown with Kerberos, which ended up in |
69 |
Active Directory with some uncompatiple changes and some really lousy, |
70 |
security short commings. |
71 |
|
72 |
> Jörg |
73 |
> |
74 |
|
75 |
When it is free, than it shall be free from here to eternity. |
76 |
Sebastian |
77 |
|
78 |
-- |
79 |
" Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. " Karl Marx |
80 |
|
81 |
SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER mailto:samson@××××××××××××××××.de |