🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ROCKWELL.91Jun22003222@socrates.umd.edu>, rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Rockwell) writes:
> Er... what do you think RMS's goals are?  And why criticize the GLGPL
> when it's just come out?
> 
> They way I understand it, the GLGPL is an experiment in just that
> direction.  If system vendors provide upgrades for GLGPL code, more
> code may be made available under those terms.  If the quality of the
> code is drastically increased by this sort of thing, then maybe a more
> restrictable version of the license may be made available.
> 
> On the other hand, if system vendors only provide binaries, why
> bother?

I was speaking from the perspective of a system vendor who has been
considering providing support for the development of code which
was later to be distributed under the GLGPL.
Draft versions of the GLGPL have been around for a
while now with similar terms to the version 2 GLGPL, so the language
isn't entirely new.

Basically, as a system vendor, I have no problem
with distributing the source code to libraries derived from GLGPL-covered
code, including upgrades, bug fixes, and so forth. However, as a
system vendor, my existence depends on my ability to attract both
software sharers and software hoarders to develop code on my machine,
at least until the software sharers can provide much of range of
applications that the hoarders now supply. The problem that arises
is that the GLGPL places restrictions on a "works that uses the library"
as may be developed by a software hoarder
that are significantly greater than the industry status quo.

These restrictions make it tougher for me, a wanna-be software sharer
and wanna-be system vendor to make the choice to use GLGPL-covered code.
Let me emphasize that I mean no criticism of the goals of the GPL,
GLGPL or GNU as I understand them: I consider them to be a non-coercive,
free-market approach to encourage freely shared software.
It is only that because of these restrictions, some system vendors
who may otherwise accept the GLGPL terms may instead choose to
place their effort on separately developing libraries that
satisfy the software-hoarder's desires. I would be saddened to have
such an outcome, but I respect GNU's desires to license their libraries
under the the terms they choose.

Regards,
Craig Hansen
craig@netcom.com