Religion?
Not at all.
I use a variety of GPLed and other licensed software, happily.
And sure, most of the stuff I use is Perl modules, via CPAN, of which most (all?)
use the same license as perl, ie: GPL or Artistic. And the Artistic is one of
the most wide open abusable licenses in the world.
I think to core difference is that as a software USER, the GPL gives incredible
freedom and usefulness. And as a corporate programmer, for inhouse applications
that we use to run our business, we get the same freedom and usefulness.
But for software publishers, they hate it, for a reason.
And now, if the GPL3 limits Wep facing apps in the same way, there will be the
same emnity.
BUT MOST PROGRAMMERS WORK FOR COMPANIES AND PRODUCE THE SOFTWARE FOR INTERNAL
CONSUMPTION.
This is the same argument, over again, just like the beginning of GPL.
We have different goals.
You want to tweak the app, make a competitive difference in the app, and resell
usage of the app. You won't be allowed. Sucks to be you.
I want to tweak the app, modify it for internal usage, and give my company better tools to produce the output that our customers pay for. I'm allowed. Life is good.
Different goals.
The goal of the GPL is to allow other programmers the ability to read and learn
from common code, and to not allow people to sell code at a profit without allowing
their customers and other people to have access to the code.
Now some people who release their code under the GPL feel that web apps is violating
what they believe is appropriate use. So they are clarifying it.
Which is having a possible financial impact on you. Please do NOT bother whining
about acceptance of GPL software in businesses and the harm you see coming.
Total crock of shit.
Just run the numbers of corporate vs web app programmers who have no value add,
and I'm sure you'll discover the huge difference in numbers.
If a particular corp does both (and most do), and find value in the GPL for
internal usage, great. If they see a GPL3 app they want to modify for web facing,
again, their choice. Either release the changes, or track down the copyright
holders and pay for a one-off license usage off it. Pay the author for the
right, don't whine about they are not giving it away.
If you really want it, possibly need it, and it is so difficult that you can't
recode it yourself in a cost effective manner, then you obviously feel it has
great value. Pay the man!
And if it a case of a true community effort, with many people contributing, and
you can't get them to release the software under a different license, well, then,
YOU ARE NOT PART OF THE COMMUNITY AND THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO GET ANY VALUE OUT
OF THEIR HARD CREATED SOFTWARE.
This is not religion, this is business. Yours, mine, and the GPL author's who now
is releasing something dual license. Or of the people who know exactly what they
are doing and do not want you using their software.
