On Tue, 06 November 2001, John Cowan wrote:
> email@greglondon.com wrote:
> > but, for the life of me, I see no threat in allowing people
> > to distribute your code as a compiled executable, as long as
> > they have to include your original source code.
>  
> By distributing library code under the GPL, you privilege
> open-source developers over proprietary developers.  

code forking is a threat which a license can prevent.
there is no threat that is fixed by this so called 'priveledge'.

> If you want Open Source to become a pervasive practice, 
> this is one way to encourage that.  

where do you find causation in your statement? how exactly does 
'preventing proprietary linking' *cause* 'pervasive open source'?

the only measure of success for open-source software 
is the number of users. (you can't claim annual sales, etc)
so if a license lowers the number of users, it cannot be said 
to be priveledging open source.

GPL adds a restriction which lowers the number of people
using the code when compared to if the restriction were not there.
proprietary developers are hindered in using GPL code.

in exchange for lowering the number of users, 
this restriction gains no measurable benefit.

this entire concept of "privledging" is nothing more
than an interesting public relations spin to cover
up the fact that some people have a nasty disposition
towards proprietary software.

the only thing it gains is screwing proprietary developers.

It gains open-source nothing to limit who uses its code.

"but linking isn't using, its a derived work," you say.

so, why does the FSF web site specifically say that the
intent of the restriction is to restrict ****use****:

: "Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library"
: ...
: Using the ordinary GPL for a library gives free software 
: developers an advantage over proprietary developers: 
: a library that they can ****use****, while
: proprietary developers cannot ****use**** it. 

calling linking a derived work is just a way that 
FSF prevents ****USE****. they say so on their own website.

then people wave their hands, say a few magic words,
and call it 'priveledging to benefit open source'
so they can sleep at night.

wake up, people. 

you can use the GPL if you want, just don't tell me
your doing it to help open-source. your hurting open
source just so you can give proprietary developers a
poke in the eye.

Greg






Greg








--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

