🚀 go-pugleaf

burley> The "problem" with the GPL does not specifically have to do
burley> with any restrictions on code protected by it.	The GPL exists
burley> specifically to _ensure_ the "freedom" of the code, its source,
burley> and those using it to have access to said code.

mathew> Rubbish.  It exists specifically to ensure the "freedom" (of
mathew> duplication) of *derivative works* based on the code, and to
mathew> ensure that those using *derivative works* get source.

aland> Not _specifically_, but _as well as_ the FSF code itself.

mathew> No.  The GPL is not in any way necessary to ensure the "freedom"
mathew> of the code itself.  If someone makes a non-"free" copy of
mathew> Emacs, that in no way limits the user's ability to get a "free"
mathew> copy of Emacs.

aland@cs.brandeis.edu writes:
> Mathew, please read what I said, rather than interpreting it
> 'incorrectly'.  What you said (above, after "Rubbish.") was that
> the GPL exists to ensure freedom of duplication of "derivative
> works" and I said that it also ensures freedom (in whatever
> sense the GPL covers) of the FSF code.

If Mathew's use of "specifically" were wrong, as you claim, we
would not be having this discussion.  I think no one reasonably
objects to the FSF requiring derivative works to include full
source of any GPL'ed code which those works use.  The problem
is the GPL's requirement that non-FSF code added to create the
derivative work must also be released under the GPL.

This requirement, naturally, is the heart of the FSF's attempts
to use GPL'ed code to encourage the spread of GNU-free software.
Therefore Mathew's comments about the specific purpose of the
GPL are right on target.

> Does it benefit anyone to release software that someone else
> can claim as their own, and re-sell for their own benefit?

Well obviously, it benefits the people who buy it.  If they
didn't see a benefit, they wouldn't lay down any money.  (Of
course, it also benefits the person doing the reselling, but
since that person is obviously a HELL-BOUND SINNER, :-), you
may decide to ignore that benefit.)

> If you object to the GPL, don't use software covered by it.

Haven't we heard this tired line about a million times now?
It makes as little sense as saying, "If you don't like the taxes
here, move."  Isn't fighting the taxes also a legitimate option?
(Albeit with as much chance of success as trying to change a
GNU-ist's mind. ;-)

> [The GPL] will restrict other people's ability to profit from my
> work, which is not something I have a problem with it.  If I write
> a program and give you the source code, and you make a few, minor
> (or even major) modifications to it, and you profit from it, and I
> don't, then what do I get out of it?

Exactly what you wanted to get out of it; i.e., nothing financial.
Obviously if you'd *wanted* a financial return, you'd have arranged
to get one, via an appropriate license agreement, rather than giving
the code away.

Or, if you're the type who likes to see his name up in lights, you
could give the code away under a copyright/license which requires
derivative works to display your name as a contributor.  Or whatever.

For the FSF, "whatever" means making derivative works GNU-free.
That, as Mathew said, is the *specific* purpose of the GPL, as
opposed to many other possible license agreements.

Jesse Perry   jesse@franklin.com   uunet!frnkmth!jesse