Re: Open Source

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@example.com>]

>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Cozens <simon@example.com> writes:

    Simon> On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 09:24:58PM +0900, Stephen
    Simon> J. Turnbull wrote:

    >> Oh, and by the way, the development branch (important because
    >> that's where the management issues arise---unlike the stable
    >> XEmacs, which is actively maintained, GNU Ghostscript is simply
    >> an obsolete stable Aladdin Ghostscript) of Ghostscript is not
    >> open source; AFPL doesn't qualify.

    Simon> Hm. Have you had a look at
    Simon> http://www.artofcode.com/ghostscript/openletter.html ?

Sure.  I'm a beta tester.  If and when there is a GNU GPL v. 3, aoc
and artifex _may_ use it---if it answers their concerns.

But Raph's interpretation in that open letter (GPL is too ambiguous on
dynamic linking) is _not_ what Peter has said on many occasions, and
certainly not compatible with the AFPL text or case history (the AFPL
has been enforced against printer/fax manufacturers who embedded
Ghostscript as a whole with no changes to Ghostscript source and which
provided links to source, fat lot of good that does without a PROM
burner, as well as against book vendors who put it on companion CDs).

Peter simply wants people who make a profit from Ghostscript's source
code to return resources to it.  The AFPL is not a strengthening of
GNU GPL's definition of work to include dynamic linking.  In fact, RMS
has always insisted that the definition of "work" covers dynamically
linked applications.  It's Linus and Larry who have been pissing in
that particular bowl of soup.

Peter got very peeved at RMS when he was forced to remove a GPL'd
module to link Aladdin Ghostscript to GNU readline from the Aladdin
distribution, even though it was developed for GNU Ghostscript and no
changes are necessary to dynamically link it to Aladdin, and Aladdin
distributes no binaries linked to readline.

The AFPL is a no-commercial-use license, pure and simple.  I think it
highly unlikely that either GNU GPL v3 or the OSD will be amended to
satisfy that restriction.  I suspect that Artifex would not be pleased
if that restriction were removed.  So I don't know what Raph is
talking about; I suspect there is behind-the-scenes stuff going on
between Peter, Miles, and Raph.

I personally find the AFPL entirely satisfactory; the only people it
restricts are commercial freeloaders and those of us who would like to
use GNU readline.  However, I don't want to see either the GPL or the
OSD amended to serve the purpose of the AFPL.


-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."