On Wed, 07 November 2001, "Michael Beck" wrote:
> > From: email@greglondon.com
> > and it's no different if the user is just some
> > guy who wants a word processor and calander program
> > for his personal use, or someone who is using
> > open source to create a proprietary program.
> >
> > in either case, open-source is caused no harm.
> 
> So if Microsoft takes some cool parts of Linux and incorporates it in Windows
> (assuming for a second that it's legally possible), you would be OK with it?

you quietly changed the fundamental point I made: 
I said "open source is not harmed." 
You conveniently changed it to "would you be OK with that?"
But that is the crux of the problem, (explanation follows)

copyright protects the work of the opensource author.
ANYONE be it god or devil, can USE opensource software,
and no harm is done to the author under protection of copyright.
By extension, the opensource author can license away
copy and distribute with no harm to his work.
Said author can even do something as outrageous as use the
MIT license and license away the right to MODIFY their code
and create derived works. even this causes no harm to the
author's original work.

on the other hand, your given scenario does not focus
on whether or not the open-source author was harmed.

instead, you focus on whether or not some third party
will BENEFIT from the author's work.

the author is not harmed if someone else benefits from
the author's code. That's the point of giving code away,
so that people benefit from it. therefore, I'm left to 
assume that it simply matters WHO is the person benefitting.

would it be OK if Joe Schmuckatelli benefitted?
would it be OK if redhat benefited?
would it be OK if microsoft benefited?

The point of Open Source is not to limit someone
else's benefit. It is simply to give authors a tool
to protect their work from harm. that's the 
pragmatic approach.

Now, "free" software, in the 'fist shaking', 
'in your face', kind of approach to things,
THAT approach might care about who benefits from
"free" software. I pointed out in a recent post
that the FSF website specifically states that
you shouldn't use the LGPL. instead you should
use the GPL. why? because the GPL will give
free software developers an "advantage"
over proprietary developers.

this is not to protect the free software authors
from harm. It is to restrict the benefit of the
free-software to a particular group. 

invoking the great satan, Micro$oft, tells me your
concern is over who benefits from free software,
that your focus is on restricting the benefit of
free software to those you see fit.

my argument still stands.
open-source is not harmed by ANYONE who benefits
from its work, Bill Gates or Linus Torvalds.

If you want to restrict who benefits from your free software,
that's fine. It's your right to stick it to Micro$oft if you want. 
But come out and say it.  Don't cloak it or confuse it with 
protecting the work of the open-source authors. 

"protecting the author from harm" and
"putting restrictions on who benefits"
are two separate distinctions.

and they are the most commonly confused concepts in the
free software community.

Greg


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

