----- Original Message ---- > From: plino <pedl...@gmail.com> > BRM wrote: > > > > Even the GPL does not provide that right. If a company wanted it could > > take a > > GPL product, make whatever changes it wanted, and distribute it internally > > to > > itself without ever contributing back to the community as a whole. > > Likewise, it could also distribute that same project to its customers, > > making > > the source available to them and them alone. The community will may never > > see > > any changes from them; yet that is perfectly valid under all Open Source > > licenses - even the GPL. > > > > Nothing forces people to work with the community. No license can do that. > > So > > please do yourself a favor and put that notion - the myth - aside. > > > > So basically GPL is worth nothing because no one can force anybody to > contribute back? > > Is that an argument in favor of convincing developers to use the Apache > license (because they aren't getting anything back anyway) or to simply stop > contributing to Open Source projects?
No. I am merely pointing out the fallacy in what we being said. To many people assume that GPL means contribute back to the community when it does not. So to argue forcing people to contribute back under any FLOSS license is 100% wrong, when the topic should be about the rights of the end-users - GPL guarantees them while Apache and other permissive licenses do not necessarily do so - in most all cases I am aware of they do not at all. IOW, if you are going to argue differences in the license and reasons to go one way or the other, at least get your facts straight about the license and its implications. Then you can have a proper debate on the merits of which one to go with. BTW, I typically lean towards using the GPL/LGPL myself. However, that won't stop me from contributing to BSD/Apache licensed projects either - or even projects governed by ICLA/CLA/etc (so long as they don't inhibit my abilities to work on other projects under other licenses). Each license has its use; and each community has their favored license. TDF/LO favors LGPL/GPL; Apache favors the more permissive Apache License. So far as I am concerned, with certain exceptions (e.g. MS Public License) as long as the license is approved by the Open Source Initiative as being a proper Open Source license - requirements being derived from the early Debian Social Contract - then what does it matter as long as the users can make an informed decision? - that is, if they don't like IBM Symphony they can make the decision to use Apache's OOo or any derived product, or even LO (since you guys have at least expressed the concept that you are truly an OOo fork and don't want to be seen as a derived product from OOo/ApacheOOo). That is just me - and I know many on this list will disagree, that is their right. Ben P.S. On the other hand, I get really pissed at companies like March Hare Software, Ltd. that have taken open source - even GPL licensed - software and essentially made them proprietary. It is very hard to move off of CVSNT to a proper CVS install, or even to another system (e.g. SVN, git) because of the changes they have made and the non-availability of the source. Yet, they support projects like TortoiseCVS so that users can continue to use CVSNT. (http://www.evscm.org/modules/Downloads/) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
