Olin Lathrop wrote: > Rolf wrote: > >> 3. A person may feel 'generous' and use the GPL. >> > > If they were really generous and their ultimate aim was to have the most > choices for end users out there, then they would not use the GPL. Some good > is definitely possible from the GPL, but more is possible from more lenient > licesnes. The purpose of the GPL is to further a specific agenda. That's > not wrong, but it's not that altruistic and deserving of the moral high > ground as is often attributed to it (like your implied statement above). > > > ******************************************************************** > Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products > (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000. > hi Olin, all. While you are correct that I implied too much in the 'generous' statement, I think you have also over-corrected the situation... First, yes, a 'generous' author who wanted to offer the greatest freedom for a potential 'user' or 'distributor' would not use the GPL, they would release their work to the public domain for 'ultimate' *user* freedom. As for your over-correction, saying "more [good] is possible from more lenient licenses" is as 'opinionated' as my 'generous' statement. An author who uses the GPL values the 'freedom' of the code more than the 'freedom' of the user. BUT, it is the (personal) desires of the author that count when talking copyright licenses, and not the desires of the users. The author of a GPL'd work would surely take issue if someone were to modify their code and sell the results. The author would not believe that was 'good'. All things being equal, people who choose to use the GPL to license their work understand why they are doing that. They believe it is the best thing to do for their code. You are right that the purpose of the GPL is to further a specific agenda, the agenda of the author. You seem to have taken a 'moral stance' on the issue yourself, and you are putting the desires of the user (you) ahead of the desires of the owner. So, the opinions of the 'masses' are meaningless when it comes to copyright. It is only the copyright owner's opinion that counts. If the author's licensing strategy conflicts with your ideals then it is not a moral issue, just a difference of opinion. If the license (whether it is the GPL or some other license) is inconvenient for you, then you have the option of simply moving on or negotiating an alternate license. To suggest that an author is 'wrong' or 'not good' or even 'not as good as they could be' just because their licensing does not suit your particular needs is morally questionable. On a practical level, the success of open source projects in general, and GPL projects in particular, is strong empirical evidence that the system works well (or at least well enough). It is hard (as a user) to beat the value-for-money prospects of such software. Using the GPL or similar licenses is a mechanism that allows the program to be free, whether the users and maintainers are free or not. Once code is licensed by the GPL it can never be 'caged' again. The original copyright owner can re-license the program (and subsequent modifications they make) using other licenses, but, the GPL'd code (and modifications to the GPL version by other authors) will be available in perpetuity. It is this freedom that is important. It ensures that the program will outlive it's developers. It ensures that if a company or individual that owns the copyright has a change of heart, financial circumstances, or other incident, that the program remains current, maintainable, and expandable. There are many instances where good programs have been 'killed' at the whim (or death) of the owner leaving users scrabbling to find replacements. So, evidence suggests that the loss of the user's freedom in regards to the ability to modify and re-sell the program is more than made up for in the long-term benefits of the GPL. I am a firm supporter of copyright, and the ability of an author to choose the license that is most appropriate for them. But, to say that once license is better than another is simply wrong. One license may be better for you, but, unless you are the author, you have no right to complain. I think that many people (like yourself) feel that `Linux Zealots` are on a high horse, and, in the most part you are right, but for the wrong reasons. These zealots are friendly enough when evangelizing the GPL, but are defensive when they are told that the GPL is viral and restrictive. If you don`t like the terms of the GPL then don`t distribute GPL`d code. There is nothing morally wrong with the GPL, but anyone who criticises its impact is in effect criticising the author`s decision. That is sure to evoke a passionate, emotive response - very similar to your recent responses to the USBProg firmware and host applciation.... ;-) Rolf -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist