🚀 go-pugleaf

In <BURLEY.92Jan27133449@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
burley@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) writes:
> One thing I think people should be aware of in this long and frequently
> redone discussion of the merits or demerits of the GPL is that the claim
> that "the GPL doesn't let me make code 'free' like public domain" is
> misleading.
> 
> The "problem" with the GPL does not specifically have to do with any
> restrictions on code protected by it.  The GPL exists specifically to
> _ensure_ the "freedom" of the code, its source, and those using it to have
> access to said code.

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

> If this seems strange to you, consider: if a software corporation had as
> a requirement that any code written for hire or in any way used by them in
> their software _not_ be public domain, would that make the placement of
> code in public domain "less free" than, say, under some sort of license
> or non-published basis?  Answer: no.

Because it's not a restriction.  You can just take the PD code, slap a 
copyright on it, and use it.  So the hypothetical "requirement" you mention
isn't actually restricting the code that can be used in any way.

> Basically we have the same situation with the GPL.  Just as placing
> a work in the public domain effectively _does_ place some restrictions on
> it (as is necessary to make the placement effective), so does placing a
> work under the GPL.

OK.  Name a restriction on public domain code.

> The GPL is somewhat more restrictive than the PDL (Public Domain License)
> because (in summary) it requires that: code protected by it cannot later be
> protected by a more stringent/restrictive license; code protected by it
> must be provided, or accessible, in source form.

It also requires that code protected by it cannot later be protected by
a LESS stringent/restrictive license, or by no license.  That restriction
serves primarily to reduce the freedom of the code (freedom in its conventional
sense).

> That doesn't mean the GPL is more restrictive in a bad sense.  It just means
> there are people who want to release software more restricted than permitted
> by the GPL (and perhaps even than PD), and that's really their problem, not
> mine.

What about the people who want to release software LESS restricted than
permitted by the GPL?

>        Although this sentiment might generally apply to all licenses, the GPL
> is one that, fairly uniquely, offers (and practically ensures) freedom to the
> code it protects and the users that use that code.

The GPL isn't at all unique in that respect.  Software released as public
domain is just as freely duplicatable by the users, and they're every bit
as guaranteed to be able to get source.

What the GPL does uniquely is offer/ensure "freedom" (of duplication) of
*derivative* works.


mathew

-- 
Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices / If
you know where I can buy the CD "In Mysterious Ways" by John Foxx, please send
me email / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! / My PGP RSA public key is
available on request / Desperately seeking CD of "U2" by Negativland / 4 lines