On Tue, 06 November 2001, Angelo Schneider wrote:

> email@greglondon.com wrote:
> > when you link someone's code, you are creating a derived version.
> > 
> > (personally, I don't like this. I see it nearly as evil as certain
> > dumb patent laws. I think the only way to use code is to link it,
> > so linking should not be restricted as a derived work.
> > but it is legally recognized as a derived work.)
> > 
> Well, if linking was not legaly derived work, GPL and LGPL where in most
> cases voiod.

not void, they simply wouldn't control linking as a derived work.
The GPL doesn't even mention linking, except at the very end where
it refers the person to the LGPL.

just because linking is legally recognized as a derived work
doesn't mean there is any reason to withhold that right or
control it in some way in the open-source world.

> If you put linking out as derived work, what remains?
> Basicly only making modifications to the original code base remains for
> creating derived work.

bingo. 

what is the measure of successful open-source software?
the number of users.

I'd give away all copyrights to my code except for the issue
of possible code forking, because giving away all rights would
mean as many people as possible could use it.

And a license, such as LGPL prevents forking.

A license such as the GPL prevents forking, but also
retains control over redistribution of linked versions 
of teh code. But this gains nothing, is in response to
no threat, and lowers the number of possible users of the code.

preventing redistribution of a modified executable does nothing beneficial.
especially when the work around is to simply have the user run
a make file.
 
the only reason I can think of is to 
"screw those proprietary developers".

too harsh? well, here's the quote from the FSF website:
: Using the ordinary GPL for a library gives free software 
: developers an advantage over proprietary developers: 
: a library that they [free developers] can use, while 
: proprietary developers cannot use it. 

but its not an "advantage".

this gains nothing for free software
(proprietary users would have incentive to contribute code
fixes to an open-source library they would be using)

protects free software from no legal abuse
(there is no forking threat in this situation)

limits who can use the free software
and perpetuates the rift between free and proprietary software.

i.e. lose-lose

> > if you wish to give away most of your rights,
> > but want to prevent people from forking your code into proprietary versions,
> > use something like the LGPL license.
> 
> I think you ment GPL and not LGPL here?

no, I meant LGPL.

the only objective measure of successful open source
software is the number of people using the code.

A proprietary fork would lower the number of users.
but with the LGPL, you can prevent forking and
allow the maximum usage of the code.
GPL lowers the usage of the code.

screwing proprietary developers benefits no one
and costs the open-source effort.

(as if proprietary developers are bad people who
should be screwed in the first place.)

from a cost/benefit view, it's lose/lose,
shooting yourself in the foot, 
cutting off your nose to spite your face,
etc, etc.

Greg


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

