Post #218,160
8/8/05 3:49:56 PM
|
How is it ridiculous?
One of the primarly goals of the GPL 3 is to close the loophole that you mention.
Think about it, under GPL 2 if you sell the software you have to provide the source code. But you can sell access to use the software as a 'web service' without making the code available to anybody. To the people that back the GPL, that is a huge loophole.
The GPL is not the end of all OSS liscenses, and it is certainly not the best liscense for buisness use. That is by design, it is intended as a liscense to drive open source, not one help buisness.
Jay
|
Post #218,162
8/8/05 4:01:32 PM
|
Bravo.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
|
Post #218,168
8/8/05 4:04:34 PM
|
Guess you don't want to use application source
in the workplace. Not a programmer, are you though.
The GPLv2 has the potential to drive a renaissance in IT, IMO. The GPLv3 kills that dream.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #218,218
8/8/05 6:10:58 PM
|
Here is my grounds for poo-pooing your concern.
Think about this: Darl McDLT, runs a business as an application service provider. Let us say that he has a potential customer that is having performance problem at the current provider they are using. They are using a CMS written in PHP and backended by MySQL, both released under the GPLv2. Pretty straight forward. Pretty much all the bells and whistles, just slow as hell, maybe becuase of not enough bandwidth to service the full load, or maybe just not enough processor umph for the job... in any case, said prospective customer says that if Darl can demo a faster system they'd switch in a heart beat.
Darl goes and does his stuff. Through his amazingly awesome programming skills, he, discovers a speedup for the SQL engine of MySQL. Solid, so solid in fact it reduces the time to start by half and speedsup SQL queries by a factor of 10. Muahahaha... nice coup there. Then Darl starts on the CMS. There he also discovers, just by removing a one line sanity check (that is prone to slow-down because of the massive amount of data it is checking against) in a file, and adding 3 quick-checks in 3 other files, doing the same thing but with constraints, gives him the same results and also significantly speeds up processing time by another factor of 4.
He then decides to rollout and deploy this customized-to-his-needs version. Does the Demo, lands the contract for the application providing. He makes lotsa money. All well and good. He has a huge competitive advantage. Plain and simple explanation of events that happen all day long in Business, right? Right. Followup questions for you: - Is there any doubt he is well within the rights of the GPLv2?
- Is there any question that he is distributing the use of the CMS backended by MySQL?
- Is there any question, that he changed the code?
- Are you satisfied, that were you Darl's competitor, that he is using nearly identical hardware and bandwidth, that trounces your setup you pride yourself in being as "Good as it gets" in regards to tweaks and making the preoper optimizations for you platform?
- Yet Darl is using the same software and nearly the same hardware, yet his site is better than 20 times faster then yours and due to that can handle many more customers on that setup, stealing business away from you. Do this seem fair?
- Do you agree, that "technically" he *IS* distributing a binary usage, being used by hundreds (if not thousands) of people?
- If you do not think he is providing / selling / distributing / making-available-for-pay the Binaries of this CMS and MySQL, then what is he selling or providing?
- Based on you answer, please tell me how you can defend this? (yes I presumed you would not agree)
Based on this whole set of question's answers, I am going to pre-suppose you would rather keep the corporate welfare loophole, on a technicality, being proper. What if both MySQL and the CMS were actually YOUR programs, that YOU copyrighted and released under the GNU GPLv2? What effect would that have on your stance? Would this affect your willingness to continue developing these programs, pro-bono? You see, what Moglen and the FSF are trying to accomplish here, are trying to close those corporate welfare usage problems that are existing right now. There are companies using so heavily modified software packages (the actual source for these programs, not the "implemntation of them") that are selling them as a service. This is literally allowing the corporations to feed off the goodwill of the "FOSS Community". Look at Sun and how it is trying this same thing with Solaris, don't get me wrong, it is cool for them to try and grab a piece of the Free Developement available out there, but at what expense to other things? I guess by now, you'll have ignored anything after the thrid numbered question. I am very upset, that you of all people don't get what this is calling for. It is NOT, ANTI-BUSINESS, just that it closes the loophole that has already been closed for the "distributors of binaries compiled from GPLv2 source", if it were so anti-business, why are so many businesses, starting to actually release source under the GPLv2, and more than likely will start using GPLv3, when the misunderstandings are worked out and everyone understands what "Web Services" really means. --
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
|
Post #218,272
8/8/05 9:25:40 PM
|
No. Wrong. And this is why
there is no 'loophole' to be closed. 1. Is there any doubt he is well within the rights of the GPLv2? No. But under v3, he must publish his changes. 2. Is there any question that he is distributing the use of the CMS backended by MySQL? Using a program is FAR different than distributing the program. Under this kind of sopistry, ALL multi-user programs are guilty of the 'loophole'. 3. Is there any question, that he changed the code? Since that is posited, no doubt. 4. Are you satisfied, that were you Darl's competitor, that he is using nearly identical hardware and bandwidth, that trounces your setup you pride yourself in being as "Good as it gets" in regards to tweaks and making the preoper optimizations for you platform? What competitors believe is irrelevant. You might believe that ANYTHING is 'as good as it gets'; so what? What gives you, as a competitor, the right to the efforts of your competition? Especially as the software HAS NOT been distributed in any way. 5. Yet Darl is using the same software and nearly the same hardware, yet his site is better than 20 times faster then yours and due to that can handle many more customers on that setup, stealing business away from you. Do this seem fair? Darl is NOT using the same software - and as Darls competition, you have the right to optimize the software as well, so there is NOTHING 'unfair'. 6. Do you agree, that "technically" he *IS* distributing a binary usage, being used by hundreds (if not thousands) of people? No. Not at all. Not in ANY WAY. This is sophistry, pure and simple. No binaries have been distributed; they are not running on the client's machine. 7. If you do not think he is providing / selling / distributing / making-available-for-pay the Binaries of this CMS and MySQL, then what is he selling or providing? Use of his server. The binaries have never moved, they do NOT run on the client machines, not at ALL. THERE HAS BEEN NO DISTRIBUTION - except if you want to redefine 'distribution'. That IS the MO of your argument, no? In fact, you CAN'T redefine distribution like this - that's why the FSF feels this so-called 'loophole' has to be closed. What if both MySQL and the CMS were actually YOUR programs, that YOU copyrighted and released under the GNU GPLv2? What effect would that have on your stance? Would this affect your willingness to continue developing these programs, pro-bono?
No effect. Under GPL2 I have no right to another's efforts unless the software is distributed. GPL3 effectively eliminates the availability of source code as a desireable feature for business, though. and more than likely will start using GPLv3, when the misunderstandings are worked out and everyone understands what "Web Services" really means. Fantasy. I've read the proposed license a dozen times, and I'm truly afraid I DO know what 'web services' means to the FSF. [link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #218,275
8/8/05 9:35:15 PM
|
Exactly the kind of response I expected.
You are missing the entire point.
If you profit from giving access to your modifications through a service charge, then you have distributed access to those binaries, though on your machine, you still are breaking the spirit of the GPLv2.
Therefore the GPLv3 is addressing it.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
|
Post #218,282
8/8/05 10:00:19 PM
|
Horsecrap.
The binaries have not gone anywhare; the SOFTWARE has not been distributed.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #218,301
8/8/05 10:52:35 PM
|
The binaries have not been distributed . . .
. . but the effect of Web services is as if binaries have been distributed. Many outside users are accessing those binaries which are modifications of GPL'd code without any benefit having been returned to the writers of the original code or to the community.
It is easy to see why the FSF considers this a loophole, especially given the increase expected in Web services, so I suspect this clause will be kept. Providers of Web services will need to find another way to achieve a return from their modifications than by keeping them secret. Those that figure out some other value will be key beneficiaries.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #218,302
8/8/05 10:53:45 PM
|
And then GPL4.
Brett Glass was right.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #218,364
8/9/05 11:09:09 AM
|
Or most OSS used for web services won't be GPL3
|
Post #218,227
8/8/05 6:23:20 PM
|
Another train of thought, I need to mention.
Let's suppose, again you are an application service provider. You develop a way to have the whole Microsoft Suite of Office type proggys offered through a webserver and work in the browser, Office and Visual Studio, we shall say.
Using one machine, you are able to service 500 users. All of them using every program at one time or another.
How do you think Microsoft would feel about this? (*1)
You aren't technically distributing or pirating the programs, so why would they even care?
Do you think they would just wave it off as an "bahhh who cares"?
I'd really be interested in your perspective on this.
*1 == I haven't read an MS eula in a long while, so I don't know what they cover anymore.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
|
Post #218,235
8/8/05 6:35:34 PM
|
question, using go-global
to a server using windows do I need to buy a license to write a word doc? I havnt looked at an MS license in a long time.
thanx,
bill
Just call me Mr. Lynch \\
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #218,236
8/8/05 6:36:27 PM
|
I knowest not.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
|
Post #218,273
8/8/05 9:26:59 PM
|
Since MS software is licenced per user
Ths is a silly analogy, Greg.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #218,274
8/8/05 9:33:46 PM
|
No... there is only one user.
The Machine itself.
Only one binary, for each software.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
|
Post #218,281
8/8/05 9:59:23 PM
|
Again, ridiculous.
Tell me why we have to license software to users when using Citrix, then.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #218,253
8/8/05 7:55:39 PM
|
Excuse me. I am a programmer.
And I use application source code in the enterprise. My strong impression is that you're embarrassing yourself in public with your ignorance.
Volunteers do not owe you the right to try to make money via any particular business model. If they want to contribute software under terms that you don't want to accept, then don't accept them. Period.
If the prospect of them donating software under those terms scares you, then you're saying that there is some way for someone else to run a business that would eat yours alive. Figure out how to do that and you'll make a fortune. If you think that lots of people want to find terms that keep you from using their donation in the way that you want to use it, then you are admitting that you're taking advantage of their generosity.
Now it seems that somehow you think that it is a bad thing for people to be able to choose a copyright license that you don't like. I simply don't see that. If I want to donate my time and energy to giving away software, then I should be able to put whatever terms I want on said software.
Sincerely,
Ben
PS And remember that not all software will be released under this license. For instance when I look at the software that we use at work, all is either not GPLed (Perl, Apache, etc), or has non-GPLed free equivalents we could switch to (FreeBSD, vim).
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #218,267
8/8/05 8:35:29 PM
|
there is a place for all kinds
large companies prefer to use vendors, I always carefully ask the vendors the license terms of all componants of their offering and ask how they are complying with whatever licensing scheme they use. I mostly use gpl in the support tools. When asked I frown upon usage in deployed apps unless the deployer clearly understands the license terms and has taken a run by the legal department prior to making it available to a customer.
Now since perl has permeated the enterprise to become the glue choice, does one have to make all the code available or just the perl scripts?
thanx,
bill
Just call me Mr. Lynch \\
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #218,269
8/8/05 8:47:14 PM
|
Perl's licensing situation is interesting
Perl is available under a choice of the GPL or the Artistic License. I have it on good authority that the Artistic License was designed to be easy to drive a truck through.
Apparently there is a desire to tighten up Perl 6's licensing somewhat. But not too much - after all a number of key Perl people are big BSD fans who detest the GPL. Larry Wall doesn't want to drive them away.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #218,277
8/8/05 9:44:15 PM
|
Not at all, Ben.
Never did I say that people should be prevented from choosing whatever license they choose. I DO believe that GPL3 (as outlined now) is a bad license. I also believe that people who don't care about the implications for business will use it. It DOES eliminate much of the utiliity of makng the source available. This could have a negative effect on business uptake - it makes software released under GPL3 little more than shrinkwrap software, as far as business is concerned. No more customisation for businesses, much of the promise of GPLed software is irrelevant if published under v3. My strong impression is that you're embarrassing yourself in public with your ignorance. I've been programming in the business world for the last 25 years, Ben. I know how business IT works; I've been in the thick of it for a LOOOONG time. My concerns over what I see as a possible bright future for GPLed software, and (in-house) IT is anything but an embarrasment. I don't think it will be the end of all things, but it will hinder/cripple the 'movement' if this thing doesn't undergo some bg changes. Under v3, availability of source code becomes much less of a feature. [link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #218,279
8/8/05 9:57:19 PM
|
Perspective is all
Guess we could use the pirates creedo and say that my "improving" and "using" GPL code doesn't amount to theft - since the GPL code is still available to any and all. But that tends to not get us anywhere.
Just as people who write code should be "free" to issue their software under the stupidest license possible, isn't it obvious that we should be just as "free" to persuade them that some licenses are stoopid. Telling them the license sux, doesn't mean that we are knaves and thieves bent on stealing their precious out from under them.
Really, the pro-or-anti business argument is a tad misleading. Truth is that there are some major businesses (e.g. IBM) that commit an enormous amount of manpower and money to open source projects. They do this not out of the kindness of their hearts, but rather out of a conniving plot to make money (especially to keep MS at bay). It would probably be best not to chase these resources away. Not all GPL software is a bunch of kids in the garage trying to stroke their ego.
|
Post #218,287
8/8/05 10:11:53 PM
|
Pirates?
Geez, man - that's like saying BSDed code is being stolen when it is not changed and not released.
As for stealing, well, I never said that either. It's quite simply that availabilty of source becomes far less attractive. Fewer programmers will use it in house. Because business wants to get return and advantage for their efforts. No advantage? No effort.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #218,294
8/8/05 10:42:16 PM
|
Pirate analogy is a different issue
It's a common argument against the idea of intellectual property. The argument says that if I "pirate" a copy of your software, I have not taken property away from you - you still have the software. In the same token, if I modify GPL software and start making money from it, I have not taken away the source code from you. My making money from your software does not amount to theft since you still have the source. You may not be able to take advantage of my improvements, but if I wasn't afforded the chance to make money, there'd be no improvements to be redistributed. Anyhow, such arguments don't cut much in the GNU world - which is always odd since they don't believe in IP rights. Anyhow, it's a dead end.
As for why business uses GPL software, the question is a bit more complicated. Some companies would like to make refinements to the software and sell those refinements. Other businesses are only in the business of changing the code for in-house use. And then there are some that try to blend these - ASP sorts of models - where the software is kept in-house but is sold as a service. Finally, some businesses participate fully in GPL software, giving back all modifications to the community - akin to a loss-leader strategy.
I would note that FSF has been vocally opposed to open source licenses that require those that modify the software to make their contributions publically available (even for in-house apps). The JCP being one they have argued against since it requires that you make all modifications available to Sun - Stallman has gone on record saying that this violates the concept of Free Software (though he has many other complaints about JCP that go beyond this one clause). Another license that's been criticized by FSF is the one attached to Squeak, which has a similar clause, though that project is not attached to a corporate entitity.
Personally, I think it's a balancing act that must be made. Lest FSF forget, the purpose of free software is not to prevent others from using or making money off of source code. The purpose is to make as much software available under the GNU terms as possible - and to make that free software as splendid as possible - and to make it as widely used as possible.
|
Post #218,296
8/8/05 10:46:16 PM
|
I disagree
under the GNU terms as possible - and to make that free software as splendid as possible - and to make it as widely used as possible.
It is to allow other programmers to learn and build. Everything else is a side effect, not the pupose.
|
Post #218,308
8/8/05 11:16:18 PM
|
The original instigation for FSF
arose from the experience with the Unix OS under Bell Labs. Programmers, such as Stallman, wanted access to the source code so that they could make improvements. They wanted to share those improvements with other such programmers. AT&T came in and restricted the redistribution of the source code because they owned the OS and all surrounding utilities.
Now how this translates into whose freedoms are being protected is a different issue. Does this mean that I have to make all modifications available to the community under all circumstances? Well, the GPL does not have that general level of a requirement, as it sought to hone in only on those that attempted to restrict access to source code when it was redistributed. The current question is not whether a programmer is forced to release modifications, but in what circumstances a trigger is met that software is being distributed.
The purpose of the FSF was to build a toolset (and subsequent OS) that was based on the free exchange of source. The goal is to make that toolset as useful as possible, such that one need not use software for which one does not have source. Use of that software in proprietary systems is not antithetical to the FSF, other than in the way it effects the quality of free software. Learning and building are but secondary goals to the overall goal of making a set of free software that can be used by users.
But all this is pure pedantry. The reasons why people contribute to free software is quite varied, as noted by Stallman's constant irritation of Linus' engineering indifference. One of the interesting questions in all this is whether Linux (excuse me, GNU/Linux) will go with a GPLv3 license. Remember that the goals of Linux are not necessarily in alignment with FSF. Sure, some distributions may use it, but there will also be many that don't. And most will simply distribute the various components under whatever license (incompatible or not) that happened to be attached.
MySQL, the other example cited, is much different than either FSF or Linux. It is issued under the GPL by a company that also sells a proprietary version. It is in their interest to prevent other companies from improving and selling MySQL services - since that's how they make some of their money. They'd just as well be the only ones making proprietary improvements - not exactly what you'd call the same goals as FSF. The authors of Jasper Reports is in the process of trying to use this same sort of business model.
|
Post #218,163
8/8/05 4:01:46 PM
|
How is that a 'loophole' unless
Unless you are actively AGAINST business use of the source code.
Unless you are actively FOR making the GPL truly 'viral'.
It is ridiculous in the context that the FSF says (but apparently does not mean) that they have no problem with profitable use of the source - after all, what business will hire programmers to work on GPLv3 code when the get NO competitive advantage out of it? Aside from software publishers (a tiny minority of businesses), that is.
As I said earlier, it seems that GPLv3 is all about removing a valuable feature of GPLed code, but only for non-software publishers - the source code itself? I mean, what business would care about source code availability when they can't actually USE it to their advantage?
No, unless this is changed by the time it is released, watch for a HUGE licensing fork.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #218,169
8/8/05 4:05:12 PM
|
It's a loophole for the FSF.
Current business models of closed-source code (and, indeed, pseudo-closed-source, like they claim web services to be) are counter to the stated ideals and intentions of the guardians of the GPL.
The virality or not of the GPL is incidental; if that's what it takes to ensure that the licence cannot be breached, then that is what they will do.
The interests of "business" are just not taken into account by the GPL; it's an ideology made flesh in the form of a legal instrument, and one that only gains its edge by subverting copyright law.
Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #218,171
8/8/05 4:07:22 PM
|
http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=21
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=218168|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=218168]
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #218,173
8/8/05 4:10:54 PM
|
Your point?
The FSF don't care at all about that, and that is precisely the point I'm trying to convey.
You will NEVER sway the FSF with an argument about "business" or "the workplace".
It's a bit like trying to convince a Republican of the virtues of a rise in income tax in order to subsidise free healthcare for all.
Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #218,177
8/8/05 4:28:30 PM
|
I started this
trying to get somebody to tell me where I was wrong.
The GPL is the FSF's, true.
The software is not.
I think v3 is a disaster that will wreck what could be a revolution in software development; and software has never been more important than it is now. If I can't sway the FSF (and you're right, I think I'd have more luck trying to talk the Hubble back into orbit), then I'll take my misgivings to forums, hoping to reach developers. If they all say "fuck you, and fuck business", then the code base will split, one for business, one for the FSF disciples, and the FSF will deserve both obscurity and curses.
I truly hope my paramism (pessanoia?) is misplaced, but I don't think so.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #218,175
8/8/05 4:25:20 PM
|
Business Interests
From where I sit, most businesses don't want or care to modify the source of the software. They don't really care to sink dollars into the development of such programs as MySQL or Apache. They do care, however, about the apps that ride on top of these packages.
|
Post #218,178
8/8/05 4:28:35 PM
|
Most businesses...
...end up buying Oracle.
Not entirely facetious, I wot.
Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #218,179
8/8/05 4:29:02 PM
|
Same difference, if the apps are GPLed.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #218,240
8/8/05 6:45:32 PM
|
It's contrary to the spirit of the GPL
The basic spirit of the GPL is that if you take GPL software and modify it and then make that software available to others, for money or for free, then you must also make the source available. The 'web services' ploy lets companies get around that, taking GPL software and making money off of it without making the code public. The GPL was intentionally designed (in part) to prevent exactly that because of the abuse the BSD liscense had suffered over the years. Unless you are actively AGAINST business use of the source code. The GPL is not anti-buisness. It is pro-personal freedom, even when that gets in the way of buisness profits. Jay
|
Post #218,289
8/8/05 10:16:36 PM
|
Except, of course
the BSD is working as designed. USE is all. Ask Brett Glass.
And if the GPLed software is not redistributed (and it is not, via web services) then there is no harm, no foul. Only if the profits being made are what is being resented is there a problem. Listening to the arguments here, I have to believe that's the case.
v3. Anti-business and designed that way.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #218,298
8/8/05 10:47:55 PM
|
Not anti-Buisness
The GPL is not anti-buisness. It is pro-end-user freedom. That this freedom gets in the way of buisness sometimes is a not so unfortunate side effect.
And in any case, if your really intent on being pro-buisness then you shouldn't support any OSS at all. The ability to download BSD gets in the way of Microsoft charging you for an OS after all.
I also think you are missing some serious considerations that mean even for buisness use the GPL has advantages. For instance, why would anybody ever release software under the BSD liscense? For a buisness all it is doing is lowering the entrance cost of competition, who will find it easier to get into the buisness if they don't have to write software from the ground up. And for a single developer, the GPL forces any company that builds on my work to pay me for my work by making their changes available also.
More over, even if a company never plans to modify software, there is an advantage to the GPL. By making the code available, you fight platform lock in and can see what the system actually does. Even if the vendor goes out of buisness, my companies ability to use that platform is not destroyed.
Jay
|
Post #218,300
8/8/05 10:50:32 PM
|
*shrug* same as BSD
You've all managed to convince me that Brett Glass was right from the start. I am ashamed.
Mark my words, though, there will be a licensing fork to end all licensing forks if the GPLv3 is not changed.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
