Re: While we're on the GPL

Post #30,352 by tuberculosis 3/1/02 2:55:36 PM Reply	Re: While we're on the GPL That's just it. A lot of GPL'd code out there has great parts in it but the way they are arranged isn't adequate to solve the task at hand. In the spirit of innovation, I often want to combine multiple projects to create something completely new. Some are GPL'd, some have free do whatever you want licenses, some glue I write myself to stitch them together. I don't mind giving some new code to the GPL'd project, but I can't push the other-licensed code under the GPL. I don't own it and I'm only using it. Also, the library is maybe 20% of my product at most - so if it means figuring out how to work around not having the library, then thats what will happen, but then everybody loses. The GPL's notion of what is a "program" is antiquated. It doesn't take into account component based development. That's the way I see it anyhow. The average hunter gatherer works 20 hours a week. The average farmer works 40 hours a week. The average programmer works 60 hours a week. What the hell are we thinking?
Post #30,357 by admin 3/1/02 3:13:32 PM Reply	That's what the LGPL is for. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #30,397 by ben_tilly 3/1/02 5:08:30 PM Reply	I think you miss the point of the GPL The GPL is not designed to be convenient. It is not to be readily used for whatever you want. It is to try to force all useful software into a public commons to meet RMS' political aims. RMS wants you to be forced into a choice, and to choose to tie the GPL around your code so you can use a piece of GPLed functionality. People who think this goal is great tend to like RMS. People who don't agree with the goal and wish he would stop complicating their lives tend to not like him so much... Cheers, Ben
Post #30,528 by Brandioch 3/3/02 4:39:56 PM Reply	All? It is to try to force all useful software into a public commons to meet RMS' political aims. RMS wants you to be forced into a choice, and to choose to tie the GPL around your code so you can use a piece of GPLed functionality. I think that wuld be entirely within RMS's belief system..... But I don't see how the GPL can accomplish that. If you don't want to use GPL'd code..... #1. Write your own. #2. Contact the original author and arrange a new license for yourself/your product. #3. Write your own. I think the GPL is a great idea for ensuring that GPL'd code is always available. But it doesn't stop anyone from re-licensing their own code. If you use GPL'd code WITHOUT arranging with the original author, then you have to release your code under the GPL, also. If said author cannot be contacted, his/her code will always be available for everyone to use (see above line). Again, I think the GPL is a GREAT idea. Not for everyone and not in every situation. But in the situation of ensuring that your code and any works based upon your code are always available for further development (under the GPL, of course), it is perfect.
Post #30,699 by ben_tilly 3/4/02 3:30:42 PM Reply	Desire and immediate tactics differ RMS' belief system is that everything should be free software, and the GPL attempts to create (and maintain) a commons of such software. The ultimate goal is not, however, accomplishable by any one license. And so the GPL is designed to enable this commons to be created and extended towards the point where his goal can be achieved. If one agrees with RMS, then the GPL is usually the right license to use. (Sometimes he will advocate a BSD style license.) If you disagree, well the GPL is sometimes appropriate and sometimes not. Cheers, Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman

Welcome to IWETHEY!