🚀 go-pugleaf

Phillip Lord <plord@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk> writes:

> >>>>> "Tim" == Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> writes:
[]
>   >> Some of us prefer to put the emphasis on Open, and feel that the
>   >> GPL is way too restrictive.  Something to do with not having a
>   >> dog-in-a- -manger attitude?
> 
>   Tim> Well thanks for answering the question. Er, not. Obviously you
>   Tim> don't know what 'Open' as applied to 'Open Source' means in the
>   Tim> first place, as the GPL doesn't seem particularly restrictive
>   Tim> to me.
> 
>         Im sure that he does know what "open" means. Its quite 
> simple.

(You are? How so?)  More to the point, '"open" as applied to "open source"'
is *defined* quite clearly and brooks no argument nor talk of "attitude",
merely discussion.

>         There has been a long running argument in the free software
> community, about whether software should be free for all to use (which is
> akin to public domain, even if it is not actually public domain). Or
> whether something more restrictive like GPL is correct, which restricts
> modifications and release under anything other than GPL.
> 
>         There are arguments to be had for both side. My own believe is
> that GPL unfortunate but necessary. It uses copyright and licensing to
> fight fire, with fire as it were, and helps to ensure that software
> remains free in the future. The other argument goes that if we want to
> make software free, it should be for others to modify as they choose, and
> to do with as they choose.

As I hope to have noted elsewhere in this thread, I've been wondering about
this sort of thing a fair bit, particularly whether "having a License" is
actually stooping to playing the same ball-game as the other side -
companies have horrendous licenses, so "free software" (whatever that
means) should have none? Pity, because it wouldn't survive as any form of
"organization" for very long as everyone'd exploit it. So yes, the open-
source definition plus several examples approach is necessary, I
think. 
Let's not lose sight of the fact that the GPL is only one such license - it
happens to enforce "once GPL'd, forever GPL'd" rather than "one opened,
forever opened but variable", which also has its pros and cons. But then if
you didn't want GPL, you have a plurality of alternatives.

~Tim
-- 
| Geek Code: GCS dpu s-:+ a-- C++++ UBLUAVHSC++++ P+++ L++ E--- W+++(--) N++ 
| w--- O- M-- V-- PS PGP++ t--- X+(-) b D+ G e++(*) h++(*) r--- y-	     
| The sun is melting over the hills,         | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org/
| All our roads are waiting / To be revealed | piglet@glutinous.custard.org