gpl backlash?

[Wilfredo Sanchez]

| Obviously, the GPL is aimed at being "user-protective" rather than 
| "business-protective".

  No.  It's "author-protective".  You write software.  You want  
people to use it (for whatever reasons), but you have certain  
restrictions you use on usage to protect you as the author.  This is  
that case with pretty much every license.  In the GPL's case, the  
restriction is that derivative works are also GPL'ed.

  Now I'm the user, and I want to write some software which maybe  
uses a snippet of code from bash.  For example, maybe I want to use  
readline.  Well, now I'm forced to GPL my work.  That's not  
protecting me as the user; that's "protecting" the authors of  
readline.  Even so, it's hardly "protecting" the author: his code  
remains free no matter what I do with it.

  It's more of a trade.  I use that code in exchange for making my  
code GPL'ed as well.  For some code I may be willing to do that.  On  
the other hand, for some code, maybe I'm not.  This is not tied to me  
being a business.  Maybe I don't agree with that philosophy, and  
would rather write and use code that is less restrictive, and  
although I think software should be open, I don't feel the need to  
impose that view on my users.  So maybe the GPL doesn't work for me.

	-Fred


--
       Wilfredo Sanchez, wsanchez at apple.com
Apple Computer, Inc., Core Operating Systems / BSD
          Technical Lead, Darwin Project
   1 Infinite Loop, 302-4K, Cupertino, CA 95014