MikeyD wrote:
>> (and for the record, IMO the GPL is to blame for this incompatability, not
>> the new XFree license.)
>>
> Possibly. But the gpl *has* to be incompatiable with any extra restrictions.
> Otherwise you'd get a slippery slope where after five or six relicensings
> you could make somehting fully propriety. The gpl has to make sure there is
> no way you can make the software one bit less free, not at all. It also has
> to make sure you cannot make it what some people consider more free,
> because that would mean it could be relicensed being less free. Overall the
> GPL does a remarkably good job that it doesn't get much credit for.

bollocks,[1] that's FSF newspeak.[2] once a program has been released under
an open source license, it cannot be made non-free anymore. ever. the code
is there out in the open, anyone can distribute it. what the GPL is
designed for is to force any modifications to become open source as
well. the GPL was explicitly designed for this purpose, and that's why it
cannot tolerate other licenses that add additional restrictions, even if
those restrictions themselves do not restrict the openness of the source.

and IMO this aspect of the GPL is rather totalitarian. RMS more or less
admits so himself: <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html>. ok, he
doesn't use the word totalitarian, but he makes it clear he wants everyone
to think like him on the matter of free software, and that's totalitarian.

i also think that the requirement itself is not fair. the original author
of a GPL program can relicense his source and make it proprietary if they
wish. that's fair, it's their code after all. but why would anyone who
adds to a program not have the same rights? mind you, they cannot make the
entire program proprietary, because the original, unmodified program is
still free. so if someone takes an open source program, modifies it and
releases it as closed source, they essentially only make their own
additions closed source, which IMO they have every right to do.

mind you, i don't *like* the idea of doing that. if you use open source
code and modify it, usually the "right" thing to do is to make your
modifications available as well. but if someone doesn't want to do that, i
think they should have the right. and the GPL doesn't give them that right.

but i'll stop ranting now...


[1] checking the spelling of that word, i find thaht it actually means more
than just 'nonsense'... interesting. ;-)

[2] subtle reference.

--
Joost Kremers joostkremers@yahoo.com
Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht
EN:SiS(9)

Joost Kremers wrote:

> bollocks,[1] that's FSF newspeak.[2] once a program has been released
> under an open source license, it cannot be made non-free anymore. ever.
> the code is there out in the open, anyone can distribute it. what the GPL
> is designed for is to force any modifications to become open source as
> well. the GPL was explicitly designed for this purpose, and that's why it
> cannot tolerate other licenses that add additional restrictions, even if
> those restrictions themselves do not restrict the openness of the source.
...
> and IMO this aspect of the GPL is rather totalitarian.

Well the original code can't be made 'less free' but you can end up with a
problem where a big Corp[1] takes the code and adds some (closed source)
enhancements that break compatibility with the original code. At that point
the original code can become useless and you have effectively given your
original source away for free, might as well have public domained it.
Similar problems can be seen with incompatible web browser extentions, and
MS J++ vs Java (although these aren't so much OSS vs big corps, more just
MS throwing its weight about but you can see the problems possible with out
the GPL restriction).

> mind you, i don't *like* the idea of doing that. if you use open source
> code and modify it, usually the "right" thing to do is to make your
> modifications available as well. but if someone doesn't want to do that, i
> think they should have the right. and the GPL doesn't give them that
> right.

They have the right not to use GPL code. Simple as that, don't like/can't
use GPL, then don't. Also don't forget that they do have that right, if
they just want to use the modified code inhouse, you're quite free to keep
your mods secret if you don't publish the bins outside.

> but i'll stop ranting now...

Can't beat a good rant

Blumf

[1] No not just MS. But you were thinking of them, weren't you