> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael > Devore > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 9:34 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Freedos-devel] Re: GPL and other licenses > [...] > Baldly put, your this argument sounds like the worst of RIAA's > with less cause. The idea that lack of a license limiting > software usage somehow damages, weakens, harms or makes a copy of > source code less free is nothing short of ludicrous. Simply put, > any code which has a restricting license whatsoever is always > less open or free than public domain to everyone for everyone. > Or do we need to now debate the meaning of open and free? The > only difference with PD over licensed is that more people can use > the PD code. Some subset of those extra people (and that subset > is probably a lot smaller than you think) will be those you may not like.
I disagree. Free sofware means everyone has the right to look the source and modify it to suit his needs. PD software is less free than GPL software. Let me exemplificate: - You can download my PD software, called XYZ. - You can modify it to support a new and exciting feature, based on proprietary and closed source information, and call it ABC. - You can publish ABC in a binary-only form, selling it for much money. - Users of ABC can't see your code nor modify it, but this is not a problem. It's your code. I can object you are making money with also my code, but again this is not the problem. - At a later taime you can cease support for ABC, and destroy its sources. - The problem is that users of ABC can't apply patches to the original XYZ code included in ABC, even if XYZ is PD. Even if I have added features and bug fixes to XYZ, users of ABC will never notice. Let's repeat with a free licence, for example LGPL: - You can download my LGPL software XYZ. - You can make a DLL of parts of XYZ, use it in your closed source project ABC, and distribute full sources of XYZ modified to fit in a DLL. - You can make any money of ABC, but everyoune has the freedom to apply patches to the XYZ part of it. > Frankly, a nasty little secret about open source is that GPL and > other such licenses are a weak lock. Ideas cannot be protected > by law, with very specific exceptions provide by patents -- > almost never an issue in these matters and definitely not an > issue here. So Evil Corporation or Bad Guy could enjoy the > fruits of a lot of licensed code effort just by sifting through > the code for its best ideas and algorithms, then writing out > those ideas in their own programmers' style and form. Perfectly > legal. Don't be fooled by those who say good ideas are a dime a > dozen. Good ideas are frequently worth a lot of money. That's true. If you want to protect ideas, then use patents. But if you have a good idea don't make a software of it: it can be easely reverse-engineered. > And as far as lifting the actual code, well, unfortunately for > those who think licenses offer good protection against direct > theft, I can tell you that competent and reasonably talented > programmers -- of which I am one along with others on this list, > not to mention an easy million off-list -- who are so motivated > could take existing source code and mask, tweak, and otherwise > modify it sufficiently to protect it against almost any legal > challenge of copyright infringement decided by judges or juries. Masking, tweaking and modifying is not an easy task. It can be a lot of work (imagine tweaking the Linux kernel, or GCC), I don't know if it's worth. Making an automate program to do the work can lead to a condemnation if this is proved. > Not that legal challenges would likely be forthcoming in the vast > majority of cases, even were there a legion of Compliance Engineers. I sincerely don't know. > Lastly, while I understand why a lot of people don't want > military use of licensed code, it's probably too vague and > idealistic a concept to work well in the real world, > notwithstanding licenses that have been out there for over ten > years which try to do exactly that. I'll not spend the extra > paragraphs on this list explaining in detail why it's not a > terribly realistic restriction since we are again beginning to > wander far afield of the list's purpose. I agree with you, here. Ciao ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
