[Gllug] [OT] while we're flaming anyway.. (was: Erratic Mouse Behaviour)

[Nix]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, James Rocks yowled:
> I have to admit that the one really big thing I like about Linux isn't
> really Linux and GNU or rather the GPL i.e. you can use "our" patented code
> but by doing so your entire codes must be made completely open ... how cool
> is that?

That's actually not what the GPL says. It's sort of what MS would like
us all to *think* the GPL says, because then their frothing about the
GPL being `un-American' and `an intellectual property destroyer' and all
that would be correct; but it's not.

What it *actually* says is (paraphrasing a lot) `When redistributing
this program, you must provide (or offer to provide) the source code as
well; you can modify and redistribute it without limit, except that you
can't change the license in a way that restricts these freedoms.'

So it doesn't restrict *use* at all; hence you can (say) produce
non-GPLed software in the Emacs editor, and you can extend Emacs
howsoever you wish, and redistribute it --- but you *can't* take Emacs
and remove all mentions of source code availability and sell (or give!)
it to someone without mentioning the source code availability; nor can
you modify it and pass it on without passing on the source code to your
changes. Basically, it's trying to make sure that the users and original
developers are on a precisely equal footing insofar as source code
access goes.

What annoys Microsoft is that they can't take a GPLed program and (say)
bolt it into Windows and sell it on; even if they release the source
code, the *entire derived work* it is part of would need to be released
under the GPL. MS dislike the fact that they can't take the work of free
software authors, put it into their products, and give nothing back to
them, as they did with the BSD networking stack (and, no, that wasn't
theft, as the BSD license permitted it.)


--- this is really, *really* paraphrased, and I'm glossing over a lot,
in rather risky ways. Please, if you're thinking of using the GPL (or of
*avoiding* using it), read the license first. It's very clear as these
things go; probably the clearest license out there after the BSD
one. It's *not* obfuscatory legalese :)


There's an enormous FAQ on the GPL, that tells you everything you could
ever want to know, and then some: <http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html>.


I like the GPL; it forces people who change my software to give their
work back to the community. Others --- and I can't in all honesty decry
them all as insane apostatic heathens deserving of naught but summary
execution --- say that the GPL is *not* free, because it denies the
right of third parties to take work and incorporate it into closed
products.

It all comes down to the definition of the word `free'. French gets this
better, `gratis' versus `libre'. I'm a fan of libre software.

>> Personally, I believe that the economic ties
>> virtually gurantee that commercial software for the
>> mass market will *always* be poorly
>> engineered and sloppily implemented - this will change
>> only if consumers stop buying it.

Conventional (simplistic) economics would indicate that you will remain
correct until writing software well becomes as cheap as writing it
badly.

But there's something wrong with such economics, anyway; if it were
right the FSF would have gone broke years ago. (But then the antique
economic models I'm referring to still suffer under the misconception
that we are all `rational economic actors', centuries of stock-market
bubbles, the existence of charities, and so on notwithstanding. i.e.,
they're tosh.)

> friend of mine considers the UNIX and Linux to be incredibly poorly
> designed.

Let me guess; he's a microkernel man! :)

> Perhaps ... if I get "attacked" I defend (I'm just not the kind of person
> to sit back & "take it" ... why should I?) so if I get many more of these
> "attacks" I will have to start looking elsewhere for my advice.

*claw claw* *fang*

*shred* *rip* *ad hominem* *slash*

(more attacks will require consultancy fees.)

-- 
`The situation is completely under control. All of them were killed.'
     --- Alim Razim, for the Northern Alliance, demonstrating fine
         command of traditional Afghan prisoner control techniques.

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug