GPL

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 20, 2007.

  1. In message <f7kcal$tf1$>, Shane wrote:

    > I'm partial to a BSD style license myself.
    > ie. heres the code, do what you want with it, now bugger off.


    That's all very well for your users. But what about your users' users? They
    do not automatically have that same right to bugger off. To guarantee that
    right, you need a GPL-style licence.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 20, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Shane Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > In message <f7kcal$tf1$>, Shane wrote:
    >
    >> I'm partial to a BSD style license myself.
    >> ie. heres the code, do what you want with it, now bugger off.

    >
    > That's all very well for your users. But what about your users' users?
    > They do not automatically have that same right to bugger off. To guarantee
    > that right, you need a GPL-style licence.


    You choose your style, I'll choose mine.

    --
    Q: What does a mathematician present to his fiancée when he wants to
    propose?
    A: A polynomial ring!
     
    Shane, Jul 20, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In message <f7pmr5$gsq$>, Shane wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> In message <f7kcal$tf1$>, Shane wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'm partial to a BSD style license myself.
    >>> ie. heres the code, do what you want with it, now bugger off.

    >>
    >> That's all very well for your users. But what about your users' users?
    >> They do not automatically have that same right to bugger off. To
    >> guarantee that right, you need a GPL-style licence.

    >
    > You choose your style, I'll choose mine.


    Some have suggested that the reason the BSD systems remain marginalized is
    because the licensing allows freeloaders. Every now and then, some company
    tries to create a commercial closed-source variant, taking talent from the
    common pool. Naturally this is a highly risky business; then, when they
    fail, the work they've done dies with them, instead of being contributed
    back to the pool. So, over time, the pool gets bled dry.

    The GPL is specifically designed to prevent this sort of thing. There's
    nothing to stop companies commercializing GPL software, and lots of them
    do, quite successfully. But the one thing they cannot do is cut themselves
    off from the common pool. So even if a company fails, that's not such a
    major calamity, because the work that it did is still available to others
    to build on. That's why Linux now has over 350 distros, supporting two
    dozen different major processor architectures, and why those numbers
    continue to increase, not decrease.

    Sure, Richard Stallman is a control freak, and he rubs a lot of people up
    the wrong way. But the GPL is the one thing he managed to get right--so
    right that it prevents even him from stuffing things up.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 21, 2007
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Shane Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > In message <f7pmr5$gsq$>, Shane wrote:
    >
    >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >>> In message <f7kcal$tf1$>, Shane wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I'm partial to a BSD style license myself.
    >>>> ie. heres the code, do what you want with it, now bugger off.
    >>>
    >>> That's all very well for your users. But what about your users' users?
    >>> They do not automatically have that same right to bugger off. To
    >>> guarantee that right, you need a GPL-style licence.

    >>
    >> You choose your style, I'll choose mine.

    >
    > Some have suggested that the reason the BSD systems remain marginalized is
    > because the licensing allows freeloaders. Every now and then, some company
    > tries to create a commercial closed-source variant, taking talent from the
    > common pool. Naturally this is a highly risky business; then, when they
    > fail, the work they've done dies with them, instead of being contributed
    > back to the pool. So, over time, the pool gets bled dry.
    >
    > The GPL is specifically designed to prevent this sort of thing. There's
    > nothing to stop companies commercializing GPL software, and lots of them
    > do, quite successfully. But the one thing they cannot do is cut themselves
    > off from the common pool. So even if a company fails, that's not such a
    > major calamity, because the work that it did is still available to others
    > to build on. That's why Linux now has over 350 distros, supporting two
    > dozen different major processor architectures, and why those numbers
    > continue to increase, not decrease.
    >
    > Sure, Richard Stallman is a control freak, and he rubs a lot of people up
    > the wrong way. But the GPL is the one thing he managed to get right--so
    > right that it prevents even him from stuffing things up.



    I repeat.
    You choose your style, I'll choose mine.

    --
    Q: Why do mathematicians often confuse Christmas and Halloween?
    A: Because Oct 31 = Dec 25.
     
    Shane, Jul 21, 2007
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Shane Guest

    Further to my last message. If you dont like the license I choose, don't
    use the software I release under that license.

    --
    A physicist, a mathematician and a computer scientist discuss what is
    better: a wife or a girlfriend.
    The physicist: "A girlfriend. You still have freedom to experiment."
    The mathematician: "A wife. You have security."
    The computer scientist: "Both. When I'm not with my wife, she thinks I'm
    with my girlfriend. With my girlfriend it's vice versa. And I can be with
    my computer without anyone disturbing me..."
     
    Shane, Jul 21, 2007
    #5
  6. In message <f7rhvt$qr6$>, Shane wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> In message <f7pmr5$gsq$>, Shane wrote:
    >>
    >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In message <f7kcal$tf1$>, Shane wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I'm partial to a BSD style license myself.
    >>>>> ie. heres the code, do what you want with it, now bugger off.
    >>>>
    >>>> That's all very well for your users. But what about your users' users?
    >>>> They do not automatically have that same right to bugger off. To
    >>>> guarantee that right, you need a GPL-style licence.
    >>>
    >>> You choose your style, I'll choose mine.

    >>
    >> Some have suggested that the reason the BSD systems remain marginalized
    >> is because the licensing allows freeloaders. Every now and then, some
    >> company tries to create a commercial closed-source variant, taking talent
    >> from the common pool. Naturally this is a highly risky business; then,
    >> when they fail, the work they've done dies with them, instead of being
    >> contributed back to the pool. So, over time, the pool gets bled dry.
    >>
    >> The GPL is specifically designed to prevent this sort of thing. There's
    >> nothing to stop companies commercializing GPL software, and lots of them
    >> do, quite successfully. But the one thing they cannot do is cut
    >> themselves off from the common pool. So even if a company fails, that's
    >> not such a major calamity, because the work that it did is still
    >> available to others to build on. That's why Linux now has over 350
    >> distros, supporting two dozen different major processor architectures,
    >> and why those numbers continue to increase, not decrease.
    >>
    >> Sure, Richard Stallman is a control freak, and he rubs a lot of people up
    >> the wrong way. But the GPL is the one thing he managed to get right--so
    >> right that it prevents even him from stuffing things up.

    >
    > I repeat.
    > You choose your style, I'll choose mine.


    But then someone can include your code into another product and release it
    under the GPL. So whatever you might choose, your code ends up being
    redistributed under the GPL anyway.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 2, 2007
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Shane Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > In message <f7rhvt$qr6$>, Shane wrote:
    >
    >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >>> In message <f7pmr5$gsq$>, Shane wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> In message <f7kcal$tf1$>, Shane wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I'm partial to a BSD style license myself.
    >>>>>> ie. heres the code, do what you want with it, now bugger off.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That's all very well for your users. But what about your users' users?
    >>>>> They do not automatically have that same right to bugger off. To
    >>>>> guarantee that right, you need a GPL-style licence.
    >>>>
    >>>> You choose your style, I'll choose mine.
    >>>
    >>> Some have suggested that the reason the BSD systems remain marginalized
    >>> is because the licensing allows freeloaders. Every now and then, some
    >>> company tries to create a commercial closed-source variant, taking
    >>> talent from the common pool. Naturally this is a highly risky business;
    >>> then, when they fail, the work they've done dies with them, instead of
    >>> being contributed back to the pool. So, over time, the pool gets bled
    >>> dry.
    >>>
    >>> The GPL is specifically designed to prevent this sort of thing. There's
    >>> nothing to stop companies commercializing GPL software, and lots of them
    >>> do, quite successfully. But the one thing they cannot do is cut
    >>> themselves off from the common pool. So even if a company fails, that's
    >>> not such a major calamity, because the work that it did is still
    >>> available to others to build on. That's why Linux now has over 350
    >>> distros, supporting two dozen different major processor architectures,
    >>> and why those numbers continue to increase, not decrease.
    >>>
    >>> Sure, Richard Stallman is a control freak, and he rubs a lot of people
    >>> up the wrong way. But the GPL is the one thing he managed to get
    >>> right--so right that it prevents even him from stuffing things up.

    >>
    >> I repeat.
    >> You choose your style, I'll choose mine.

    >
    > But then someone can include your code into another product and release it
    > under the GPL. So whatever you might choose, your code ends up being
    > redistributed under the GPL anyway.


    And?

    --
    Q. How many mathematicians does it take to change a lightbulb?
    A. 1, he gives the lightbulb to 3 engineers, thus reducing the problem to a
    previously solved joke.
     
    Shane, Aug 2, 2007
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bob Mahan

    CASM logMine v1.2 released under GNU GPL

    Bob Mahan, Nov 12, 2003, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    622
    Bob Mahan
    Nov 12, 2003
  2. julien
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    459
    julien
    Oct 15, 2005
  3. steve
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    348
    steve
    Aug 21, 2004
  4. thing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    376
    thing
    May 8, 2005
  5. steve
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    617
    Bling-Bling
    Aug 13, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page