Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)


On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Joe Butler wrote:

(In the following response, I'm paraphrasing what I understand to be Stallman's position on the matter --- what I write isn't necessarily what I personally believe. Personally, I'm ambivalent but leaning toward Stallman's view.)

So, what's the reasoning behind these licences that don't allow a commercial
(closed source) apps from using them?

Software should be free. If Microsoft (for example) distributes an operating system that the user can't tweak, check for security holes, or give to his friends, that's just plain wrong. This kind of exploitative software needs to be stamped out permanently --- one simple way to do that is make lots of good /free/ software, which will drive out the bad. And by putting everything under the GPL, we ensure that the bad software makers will never be able to come back, since they can't pull the same "steal the code, tweak it, and release it as closed source" tricks they did back in the '80s.

In once sense, if the idea behind the GPL, etc. is to benefit others, this
is a limitation that will reduce the number of people that can actually
benefit from it.

So? People shouldn't use closed-source software, because it's wrong. If the GPL makes it harder to develop closed-source software, that is a /benefit/, not a drawback.
So it'll take longer for the free world to catch up to the evil closed-source guys. So what? You can't wait two extra years for your free e-mail client?

 A closed source app is not going to open its source just
so it can use some GPL.  If the source was allowed to be used by all,
without the restrictions on commercial apps, that would benefit a lot more
people, wouldn't it?

No, because then Microsoft (for example) would take it, improve it, and release the improved version as closed-source. Everybody loses.

You'd have commercial apps integrating GPL stuff that people would buy if
they offered something that the free alternatives didn't offer.  You have
all the free stuff, just as if the commercial app didn't exist (except that
you might have fewer users due to some of them prefering the commercial
alternative).  You'd still have the open source 'community' that could
emulate the commercial app, if they wanted to.

By the same argument, it's okay if I murder a bunch of people, because there will still be a living 'community' just as if I weren't killing people. That's just stupid. Murder is wrong, no matter how many people you /don't/ kill.

(Tangent: Stallman uses the murder-is-wrong analogy to ridicule those programmers who complain that they can't write free software because they need a commercial salary. "So it's okay to kill someone and take their money, because you need money?" No! A big salary doesn't excuse wrongdoing! And if you really can't make an honest living in /free/ software design, you should go do something else for a few years. Build houses, or become a policeman, or do something else that's not intrinsically immoral.)

I think if I were producing a commercial app and wanted to use some GPL, I'd
just write an open source wrapper around the GPL stuff and release the
wrapper so that commercial apps were allowed to use it - the wrapper might
be a bit of a dog to use though ;-)  Would that layer circumnavigate the
restrictions?

No. The GPL is highly viral, and designed to be that way, for all the reasons I mentioned above.

However, releasing the original library under the LGPL would probably take care of your concerns. It's not nearly as viral.

HTH,
-Arthur
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
    ... > putting everything under the GPL, we ensure that the bad software makers ... > "steal the code, tweak it, and release it as closed source" tricks they ... > No, because then Microsoft would take it, improve it, and ... >> You'd have commercial apps integrating GPL stuff that people would buy ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: GPL and Python modules.
    ... >>I'd say everything that uses a GPL'd module is derived work and must also be ... It doesn't matter how you distribute it. ... >>LGPL you could use it in a closed source app but must make available any ... > don't think that you need to GPL the code (and if you GPL the code, ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: GPL and Python modules.
    ... It doesn't matter how you distribute it. ... >LGPL you could use it in a closed source app but must make available any ... don't think that you need to GPL the code (and if you GPL the code, ... The thing is, the source, although it depends on the GPL code to execute ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
    ... without any GPL code - the front end would call the GPL database engine. ... AbiWord, ... >> You'd have commercial apps integrating GPL stuff that people would buy ... You'd still have the open source 'community' that could ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
    ... > putting everything under the GPL, we ensure that the bad software makers ... People shouldn't use closed-source software, ... >> You'd have commercial apps integrating GPL stuff that people would buy ... >> just write an open source wrapper around the GPL stuff and release the ...
    (comp.programming)
Loading