>Sandip Bhattacharya wrote: > Anupam Jain wrote: > >> No, I still think GPL is Free-er than BSD except for that single caveat. So I want to release any software I might develop under a modified GNU like license which allows development and distribution of closed source software as long as it is separated cleanly-enough from my software (eg. if it uses the library only through it's public interface). > > > I would be interested to know how you find it Free'er when you are looking for a loophole which will make it less Free. ;) > >> >> The fact that THE GNU GPL does not include such a clause makes me wonder if there is a loophole I'm missing. > > > :) So it is a loophole in the licence that you are looking for. And you are complaining because there aren't any? > I didn't mean a loophole in the GNU GPL. I am looking for a loophole in the modified GPL that exists only in my imagination. Since I am prone to idealistic but unfeasible ideas (which makes life really difficult as an engineering student :-) ), I can't help but think that if a large body of developers do something differently then they must have a good practical reason for doing so. I read some about the LGPL and it does not allow static linking but I would want that to be allowed as long as the dynamically linked version is also provided. Plus the public interface thing was only an example. There can be other schemes also like allowing anything that can be distributed separately from the software (even a binary executable patch that modifies some small thing in the "free" library). I don't think that LGPL allows that but it should. On the same argument of "It's not the tool that is illegal, it's the use to which it is put by an individual that is or is not."
>> >> The only bad thing I see about such a license is that it would also promote (in addition to free software) closed source software to be developed. But then Free Software is about community building and not killing other communities. >> > > It is important to consider whose freedom you are talking about - you as the developer, or the community who uses the software? > > GPL restricts your freedom as a closed source developer, all right, but the aim is to safeguard the community's interest. > > The software that you want to use has been developed by (almost) self-less contribution from others - and these developers dont feel it worthwhile to help people who dont feel the same. > > Basically, people who develop GPL'ed software have no interest in "promoting" closed source software. Why do you think this attitude is "killing" the closed source community? > > How does closed source software help the software community? Closed source software is all about self-interest. You dont want others to profit from your software and so you keep it closed source. GPL'ed software is all about building software that everybody has access to so that everybody can profit from it. These two philosophies are antithesis of each other. How can you disagree fundamentally with the other philosophy and at the same time criticize it because it is not helping you? > > - Sandip > Maybe I sent out the wrong vibes in my previous mail.. I am an absolute free-softwarist :-). So I don't benefit from closed software at all and thus have no personal/financial interest in promoting it. But one of the basic principle of the freedom philosophy is that the ends do NOT justify the means. When you are following the moral high road, you do not go out of your way to take the occasional short cuts. The goal of the GPL should be to protect the work of the "self-less" developers and not to prevent the "heretic" developers from making money. There is no harm in having such a goal on a personal level (it's every individuals personal freedom to have his own philosophy) but it should not be a part of a public reference (which the GPL virtually is for Free licenses). If, some time in the future, the animosity towards the closed source development model were to change (perhaps someone *mathematically* proves that it is what god intended us to follow =:) ) we should not have weaved a web of intolerant rules around ourselves that it makes adaptation to this new development by the masses difficult. The GPL should include only the minimum set of rules that completely protect freedom. The not allowing other people to distribute *independent* software (software that can theoretically be developed without ever having touched even a single line of the "free" code) rule does not protect our freedom as a free software developer but is there only in the spirit of "he does not help us so why should we help him". Thus it is a wrong thing to say when you are preaching to the masses. Let the people decide for themselves who they want to hate, we just give them a reason to like us :-). I might not have made much sense above in running text so I need to re-organise my thoughts but a lot of people use the GPL without understanding all the implications (including me). And since the viral clause makes it very hard to correct mistakes, it is vital that we get it right the first time. Thus some research and heated discussions are necessary ;-) - AJ _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
