Jeremy,
> My right to access your software NEVER overrides the right of the
> creator to decide how people can use or license his/her software.
Then what about the right of the original author to license his software
under the GPL? You do not have a right to access GPLed software for the
purpose of modifing it, distributing your modifications, and not
releasing the source code.
It is for this reason that it is hard to take your argument seriously.
It seems like you're saying:
The GPL is wrong because the creator of GPLed software is putting
restrictions on other programmers. Those restrictions keep the
programmers from putting their own restrictions on the software.
I guess the confusing thing to me is that you seem to be mandating that
if I share my software, I have to share it without restrictions. But if
I want to put any restrictions on my software, then you think I
shouldn't share it at all.
Is that a fair summary of what you are saying?
Why do other hypothetical programmers have a moral right to control what
restrictions I put on my software? Why can't I restrict my software
however I see fit?
(I would emphasize that you are placing the rights of *hypothetical*
programmers over my rights. No one is restricted by the GPL until they
try to modify the software it covers. There is a lot of GPLed software
that no one but the original author is interested in touching.)
Further, once I have announced my intentions regarding the restrictions
on my software, why are your rights infringed? Am I obligated to share
my software under your terms?
If I am, then what about, for example, Microsoft's TCP/IP stack — they
took that from BSD and used it as the BSD permits — without contributing
anything back. Is that ok or is it wrong?
Of course, I would argue it is fine. They did what the BSD permits them
to do. If the original authors of the BSD TCP/IP stack didn't want
people taking their code and making proprietary bundles out of it, they
had the means (via copyright) to restrict that.
"Jeremy Sliwinski (mailing list account)" <listbox@unix-boy.com> writes:
> You can't "let the market decide" because the GPL circumvents the
> ability of the market to make decisions. By FORCING programmers to
> submit their changes in the GPL, the a market-based decision can't be
> made.
The market hasn't lost the ability to decide. Programmers aren't
stupid. Why would someone who doesn't like the GPL try to distribute
modified GPL software? I'm not under an obligation to share my work
without compensation under the terms you dictate.
> Programmers who may want the changes they have submitted to be
> licensed differently can't make that choice.
Why would they submit changes to software when they know they can't
relicense their work in the way they want?
> It harms programmers because it infringes upon each programmers
> ability to place restrictions and requirements on the software they
> have written.
To which I can only reply: so what?
As I said, I have trouble taking this argument seriously. Especially
when you follow it up with this:
> My right to access your software NEVER overrides the right of the
> creator to decide how people can use or license his/her software.
Mark.
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org
Received on 12/13/08
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 12/19/08 EST