Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
On 4/16/08, Jorgen Schaefer wrote:
You are confusing that with the argument that the GPL does not allow you to make your code non-free - i.e. it does not allow you to modify the code and just distribute it in binary form without available source code, giving others less freedom than you had when you received the program.
but that is actually what i am referring too. i cant include GPL software in my program unless i make my program open source. and for me that is restrective because thousands of companies produce propriatery software, i am not in the position in mycompany to release the software as open source, and in fact, being a small company if a larger company did have the code we would be completely sunk. now i cannot use any GPL software in the program but i can use LGPL or BSD or MIT software because then i only need make that specific portion of the program open source.so i still stand that GPL is less free and restrictive, and inface counter productive.
So you wish to use source code for which you were given freedom of
use by the author, and not pass on the same freedom to other
users. (It doesn't matter to this whether you do not wish to pass
on that freedom to other people because of good or bad reasons)
_You_ wish to _restrict_ the freedom of other people. The GPL does
not allow that. Which is what I said: The GPL restricts your
freedom to restrict other people's freedom. The BSD license gives
you freedom to restrict other people's freedoms.
In this particular case, you could ask the author of the program
to relicense it for your use only; it sometimes works, especially
if accompanied with a small share of the profit. Otherwise,
providing support for Free software is also quite a good solution
to make money off it. But I guess this isn't quite the thread to
talk about whether one can make money with Free software, and how
:-)
Posted By: sambarinowell, i think restricting my freedom to restrict other peoples freedom is much less free than allowing me to do as i wish provided i do not restrict other peoples freedom to use the software that i was given freedom to use.
then it is up to me to do what i want with my original work, and still requires me to keep free what i got for free. it's not telling me what i need to do with my original work, and that is true freedom if u ask me.
Posted By: sambarino_You_ wish to _restrict_ the freedom of other people. The GPL does not allow that.
_You_ wish to _restrict_ the freedom of other people. The GPL does not allow that.
Posted By: giddieVazub, assume the KDE project were under a BSD-like licence. Some large company would come along and make a KDE clone. They'd improve it just enough so that end-users would see the advantage of switching to their system, then they'd break compatibility. Bear in mind here that 99% of computer-users are pragmatic. Non-geeks will go for the better-supported, more popular system. Eventually, the only people left using KDE would be politically-motivated. Fewer bugs would come in, and development would slow down, leaving the proprietary clone further in the lead. It's the classic embrace, extend, extinguish manoeuvre. As it stands under the GPL, KDE is a cutting-edge project, with an increasing number of followers, and it can't be extinguished by anyone.
Posted By: giddieJust have a look at the BSD kernels. They're pretty popular as servers I think, but the Linux kernel is way ahead in pretty much every area. It's where the real innovation is taking place.
Posted By: giddieSo in conclusion, I'd say that the GPL is designed to prevent the embrace, extend, extinguish tactics of large greedy corporations.
Posted By: MohjiveMy question is, what right have I, as original and copyright holder of the original code, to claim other people's code?I really don't care about this discussion, and I think you're all nuts for participating in it, but that's a pretty disingenuous statement (at least as much as anything from the FSF). I think you know that, too.
Posted By: giddieVazub, firstly I'd like to point out that I have no interest in the FSF. I'm interested in good technology. Secondly, the FSF does not own GPLed code. Those projects that are part of GNU assign their copyright to the FSF, but that is a completely different thing.
Posted By: m@cCoSome examples of EEE (straight from wikipedia): the classic IE and Netscape, Microsoft's extended Kerberos, denying connections from standard implementations and disallowing third-party implementations of the extended version. There's also OOXML vs ODF, which is clearly an attempt at EEE.
Posted By: giddieI don't quite understand the issue you raise about code reuse by freelance programmers and suchlike. Most open source libraries are under LGPL, so no problem there. Is there any code you're thinking of specifically?
Posted By: giddieIsn't it?
That leaves me wondering --- if Linux is GPL, surely GLibC should be GPL too?
Linux might be considered to have three main licenses, as follows . . ..
<snip>
* The GPL as clarified by Linus. The Linux kernel is licensed under the GPL, but with this clarification:
This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls -- this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of 'derived work'.
Posted By: MichaelLinking against operating system libraries is also explicitly allowed by the GPL.
Section 1, GPL3The “System Libraries” of an executable work include anything, other than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an implementation is available to the public in source code form. A “Major Component”, in this context, means a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.GPL2 has a similar section:
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
1 to 24 of 24