The fundamental problem with the GPL is the same thing you seem to regard as a virtue, namely that to modify or link with and redistribute GPL material, all one's own material involved must be made available under the same terms.
It's a lever to force everyone to play by the same particular interpretation of openness. Yes, in one sense that's fair, because it's the same interpretation applied to everyone. But in another, it's not, because it's one bunch trying to force their particular interpretation on everyone else as an unavoidable condition for collaboration with them, and ultimately promote it as the preferred form for all collaboration. I have a _very_ hard time trusting anyone that's so very sure they're Right (see "Leaping To The Stars" for some good discussion about the problems that Knowing You're Right can cause). Note also that doesn't preclude believing in absolutes, it just precludes trying to coerce others to share those beliefs. BSD is the exact opposite, compatibile with anything). The real problem (IMO) with BSD is not just that someone could make something proprietary out of it, nor that they could make a fork, but the combination: that proprietary forks (i.e. lock-in mechanisms) cannot be prevented. However, the original code remains open, and someone else can always come along and make something better than the proprietary fork (but still open) out of it. CDDL attempts some sort of middle ground, to balance offering something of value with maintaining some defensive measures and avoiding naivete. I don't claim that it's the best of its kind, or couldn't be improved, but to my way of thinking, it has advantages the others lack, or at least shows an effort to _balance_ a variety of concerns. To concede to the GPL is ultimately to say that the participation of the GPL community is so valuable that one is willing to overlook their viral and coercive license and the philosophy under which it was created. Perhaps that's a valid conclusion, but I tend to think that coercion should be opposed _no_matter_what_ the apparent gains of giving in might be, because coercion never stops. For instance, relating to matters that may be new to GPLv3, I agree completely that DRM is counterproductive and ultimately doomed to fail, while hindering both developer and customer in the mean time, stomping all over "fair use", and so on. But I think it's better to let folks find that out for themselves than coerce them to agree with me as a condition for my cooperation on other matters. Look at Jobs' remarks that the music industry should drop DRM for digital audio distribution. Look at EMI considering it. Look at the fundamental issue that after all the measures and countermeasures have fought to a standstill, divided the market, and created all sorts of interoperability problems, a digital nth generation copy (unlike analog) is still exactly as good as the master, and the _real_ answer is to take advantage of the savings of digital distribution to price low enough to not be worth the bother of ripping off. That's something that nobody accountable to their shareholders would believe until they found it out for themselves. This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
