On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:54:42 +0000, Lee wrote in message 

> On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:23, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +0000, Lee wrote in message
> >
> > > I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd
> > > aircraft.  The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by
> > > people who want to ensure that their work remains free (as
> > > in free beer) but also want to make sure that their work
> > > isn't exploited by commercial organisations.  Some people
> > > also like to include non-violence conditions.
> >
> > ..these issues has been and is discussed thoroughly in the
> > fsf.org and opensource.org and Groklaw.net and many other
> > places, I still don't see how any other open or free source
> > code license gives the author more control over his code, also
> > for commercial or military use.
> >
> > ..and, those a/c authors who wants it both ways, are free to
> > use more licenses, like Mysql AB with Mysql or Trolltech with
> > Qt.
> You're thinking too narrowly perhaps;)  Licences are not always 
> wanted by many people - they can have a nasty habit for biting 
> you on the back-side when you least expect it (not that I ever 
> actually find myself expecting to be bitten on the bum).

.. ;o)   FUD-meisters like to make that impression

> If a work is created by someone there is no intrinsic need for a 
> licence to allow other people to benefit from the work (except 
> of course, where safety is likely to be an issue).  I could make 
> a paper aeroplane and give it to you for you to fly - you won't 
> need a licence.  All you will need is for me to give it to you.  

..an unlimited license, ok.  Who's paper you did fold? ;o)

> But if I think that you will stick it up my sleeve and set fire 
> to it, I won't give it to you.

..here we move towards Contract-land.  If you print your license on my
paper plane, does my acceptance or not on it, have _any_ ramification 
on my receipt and use of that paper plane?  Also, given my acceptance
of your "license", I can circumvent it by dipping it in turpentine,
stick it up your ass and light it up for such scientific purposes as
recording your rotation speed, climb-out angle, and ceiling.  ;o)

> I can see why some people like that way of operating, even though 
> I'm personally happy with the GPL.
> > > Personally, while I'm happy with the protection that the GPL
> > > gives me with regard to credit for the work and the lack of
> > > control over the work once released under the license, I
> > > can't
> >
> > ..you control your own work, and not anyone elses, under the
> > GPL.
> I control what I'm doing and what I've done but I have no control 
> over what anyone else does with what I've released under the 
> GPL.

..precisely, because their changes to your code is _their_ work.

> >
> > > criticise the people who don't want to give up that control.
> > >
> > > Just for the record, I wouldn't have any problems about
> > > linking to pay-ware either.  No one is forcing anyone to buy
> > > anything, so it's take it or leave it.
> >
> > ..not a problem with GPL payware, _maybe_ under other payware
> > licenses, this depends on the license's "small print"
> > language.
> >
> > > I think the GPL is great for many things but if applied to
> > > everything exclusively it becomes a tool of force and people
> > > can no longer do what they want.
> >
> > ..the only problem with the GPL in that regard is when you
> > wanna deny other people the rights you yourself has been given
> > by the original authors, "before you jumped in."  Your own
> > code is and remains your own, and you license it as you damned
> > well pleases.  Other peoples code can be thrown in legally
> > too, _if_ they give you a license to do so, and wise people
> > will tell you "Riiiiiiiiiiight, I'll consider it if you can
> > convince RMS and Eben Moglen to get that into GPLv3."  ;-)
> The problem I see with it is when people say that something 
> _should_ be licenced under the GPL, or whatever licence one 
> fancies.  If someone decides to release it under an 'open' or 
> 'free' licence, then all well and good - everyone benefits - but 
> if you start saying that it _should_ be so licenced then the 
> person actually doing it has no choice and you've entered the 
> realm of compulsion.

..ah, but for example the BSD type licenses _allows_ bad people to skim
off the good stuff _and_ change author credits _and_ hide it as closed
source _and_ charge for it.  

..with the GPL, everything is in the open, that's why I say "should GPL"
and is happy to chew out etc anyone to make it happen.  ;-)

..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
  Scenarios always come in sets of three: 
  best case, worst case, and just in case.

Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to