Re: [tlug] linux in Japanese schools

[Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com>]

On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Marty Pauley wrote:

> On 06/01/07, Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com> wrote:
> > So with something like BSD-licensed software, when you get hold of it,
> > you can do what you like with it. You can change it, keep your changes
> > to yourself, and sell compiled versions for money, if that's what you
> > want to do.
>
> You can do all those things with GPL'd software too.

I can see how I was slightly unclear above: I meant that you could do
all three of those things together. However, my understanding is that
if I modify a GPL'd piece of software, I am not allowed to give it to
anyone unless I also offer them all of the source (including the code I
wrote) for free, and allow them to redistribute it as they wish.

> ...*if* you distribute, you must also
> grant the same rights that you were given.

It seems to me that you must grant further rights, beyond what you were
given. You not only must give the end-user all of the GPL'd code, but
also give him for free and grant him rights to redistribute any of your
code that links to this GPL'd code.

So, for example, if I spend ten years writing a large, complex
million-line application, and then link GNU readline into it before
selling someone a binary, they then have the right to demand the source
code for that entire application, and they can redistribute it freely.

For some rason, this sort of thing, to me, feels more like "compelled
speech" than "free speech." The end user didn't put any effort into
making anything in that application, and the author of readline
certainly had nothing to do with making the app. Yet the author of
readline is saying, "the price for using my code is that you have to
give away, for free, a million lines of your own code that you spent the
last ten years writing."

Note that I'm not saying that this is wrong to do this; I feel that
authors of code should be able to put any license on it that they want.
I'm just saying that compelling someone to give away the product of
their own efforts for free or not distirbute that product at all doesn't
seem very much like "feedom" to me.

Maybe I'll come up with a better way of explaining this if I think about
it for a while.

> The "no charge" is not the main effect, just a side effect.  The main
> effect is that the software can be improved or adapted without
> bothering the original author.

I disagree with this analysis (though I'm willing to be proven wrong).

It seems to me that with pretty much any free license, as well as with
material in the public domain, the software can be improved or adapted
without bothering the original author. The GPL, additionally, places
restrictions on how you may redistribute your own code that you wrote if
it links to this GPL'd software:

    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    parties under the terms of this License.   ^^^^^^^^^
	    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The "no charge" side effect....

I find it hard to think of this as a "side effect" when it's the only
major difference between the GPL and BSD-style licenses. Or is there
some other difference I'm missing?

cjs
--
Curt Sampson       <cjs@example.com>        +81 90 7737 2974