> > Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 16:18:07 -0600 > From: Chris Penn <cantorm...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [LinuxUsers] Windows cheaper on the cloud? > To: SoCal LUG Users List <linuxusers@socallinux.org> > > Ragi: > The original comment was about open source (it may have been a joke, > or maybe serious). However, you used the term "GPL" interchangeably, > and that was the origin of my comment. > > > Right, roger said open source. My comment was about GPL. I was not > interchanging them. I was careful to limit my comment to GPL. Saying > open source is a little broad. > > I read a comment about Open Source, and your response only mentioned GPL. But whatever.
> "Anyway, some of us don't leave in academia-world and do consulting to > pay the bills. In this business-world, we have to make the best > decision for our customers and *explain* to them what is best for > them. In certain cases, *shrug*, open source is not the best solution. > In many scenarios, the license is the real deal killer. Sometimes, > these companies don't feel comfortable with GPL - and with reason. " > > You are free to live outside of "academic-world". I am also a > sys-admin and even though it is at a university, I do get paid and > have bills to pay like anyone else. I agree, in some cases, open > source is not an option to customers, but it is always the best > solution in implementation, when possible, and the best practice when > writing code. > > Chris, with all the respect, but that is a ridiculous statement. Talking in absolutes is honestly the attitude of closed minded people. I don't think you are one of them, but we are going to have to agree to disagree. There are *many* cases when open source is *not* the best solution, even when "possible". Example? Oracle vs PostgreSQL. I can give you many many many cases where Oracle is a much better solution for particular cases. For example, for Raster and topological analysis. In that case, the "best solution in implementation" is not open source. Disagree with me? Contest it with the PostgreSQL guys themselves, they will agree with me. "But make no mistake, in many cases, GPL is used to protect the > ***creator's*** original intention with the source code, not the > ***user***. Actually, I am not against that, they created it, it is > their *right* to do so. But calling that " freedom for the **user** " > is just regurgitating licensing political speech. If you want to talk > "freedom of the ***user***", then licenses like BSD give the > ***user*** far more freedom." > > No, that is wrong. What is the GNU GPL for, what is its purpose or > intention? > The agenda? Make ***ALL*** software free. I don't want to debate whether that is good or not, but that is the intention. To defend the freedom of every user. > That everyone that gets the software gets the following freedoms: > 0. the freedom to run the program as you wish. > 1. the freedom to study the source code and change it as you wish. > 2. the freedom to help your neighbour, which is the freedom to > distribute exact copies up to and including publication when you which > 3. the freedom to contribute to your community, which is the freedom > to distribute copies of your modified copies up to and including > publication. > > What about the freedom of the *user* to change it as they see fit without having to convert your entire code to GPL??!?! Now THAT is true freedom! The viral clauses are, for certain cases, horrendous. They are there to protect the agenda of the **creator**, not the **user**. BSD and Apache licenses are usually about a different philosophy. People that release software under those licenses are not interested in political purity (like the GNU foundation is), but the interest lies somewhere else. They are about sharing, building communities that are free to change code and do whatever they want with it - *true freedom*. Credit has to be given where it is due. Fine with me. Even LGPL (which GNU itself says it is a bad license) is a far more attractive license in many cases. You can combine it with your own code provided that you follow certain rules and if you change/fix the original code, you need to publish those changes. Give credit where it is due. Fine with me! Isn't there a clause there that says that if you integrate GPL code you have to name your first child Stallman, and so does every other child that come from any of those infected children until one of the generations discover time travel and manage to come back and affect the space-time-continuum to correct your mistake???? > "Ugh, I think I started a license talk. Lame. Sorry." > > I am only going to correct what you said, not attack it. Piece not war > ::grin:: > > There is always an exception. As an alternative to proprietary > licensing only, dual licensing is acceptable, i.e., QT. Releasing the > code under GPL and then selling to particular companies permission to > use the same code in other ways. It should be noted that the FSF will > never support dual licensing as policy because they believe in > treating everyone the same. > > Chris... > > Dual licensing is not about "freedom" my friend. It is an excellent model to protect the interest of the software writer to make money! People that want to tinker with the code (i.e. the user), are free to do so - provided they convert to "GPL mode." For that particular usage there is no monetary gain nor business in mind for the *user*; it is just about building things. A business wants more people to use their software so that people become very familiar with it. Perfect. If the user of the GPLed software decides to make a business out of it, then they actually have to worry about competition and all the other "traditional business things" (whether they are valid or not is not under discussion). What if they don't want to release all their source code under GPL? Well they can buy a business license! Dual Licensing using GPL and some other form is *perfect* for this scenario. Note I don't think this is actually a bad business practice... except that I recognize it as that, a *business practice*. It is clearly not a form of "software freedom" and hardly protecting the "freedom of the user". Compare that against the case of Apache or BSD licenses and you'll understand why I would think BSD or Apache to be "agenda-less" licenses.
_______________________________________________ LinuxUsers mailing list LinuxUsers@socallinux.org http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers
