1.    I have been and am extremely impressed with Olin's 
approach to releasing code for others to use.

2. re Rolf's response to Olin:

> 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.

Here we need to differentiate between "freedom" for one or 
many users and "Freedom" versus good or benefit.

Public Domain imparts maximum freedom to the direct 
recipient but that freedom includes the right to restrict 
all subsequent freedoms for others inasmuch as they relate 
to how they use the work. For example a PD recipient could 
notionally resell a program unchanged and claim full 
copyright. If the prospective buyers were not aware of the 
existence of the PD original they may buy code which was 
available fully-free elsewhere. There is a bit of 
"Schrodinger's Cat" at work here. A person aware that the 
sold work is 100% identical to the PD product may arguably 
copy the sold product freely. An unaware buyer may not. But 
if they change a single character the work becomes 
derivative and fully covered by copyright.

They may also (more likely) add very minimal packaging to 
hide the fact that essentially all the functionality is 
provided by the PD work and then resell it as a copyrighted 
product which may not be copied or used to derive work from 
without licence, regardless of how minor the changes are

Importantly:    The GPL and variants to variable extents 
maximise accumulated and accumulating freedoms in some areas 
while limiting them in others. Deciding how to weight the 
various components is a major part of the ensuing arguments 
about merit.

> 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.

Too strong, I suggest.
They may value (as above) the accumulated net freedoms of 
many users over conveying full freedom to a more limited 
number of users.

............... ...

> 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.

Plus the accumulated freedoms gained in other areas.

> There is nothing morally wrong with the GPL, but
> anyone who criticises its impact is in effect criticising 
> the author`s
> decision.

... and are also criticising copyright law.

Which they have a right (in many countries) to do.



            Russell McMahon


 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist