On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:18:58AM -0800, Kevin Lawton wrote: > --- Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's not a done deal. > > It _is_ a done deal. If you want to change it, > rewrite all parts of plex86 from non-consenting parties > including me. 'nough said. I can change the code to the GPL at any moment according to the LGPL. But that doesn't make sens if not almost all developers agree doing that.
> > I don't see what licensing has to do with architectural defects. > > Architectural design, licensing, and many other factors > add together to form a complete "welcome mat" which > enables the sharing, contribution, interaction, > acceptance, draw etc for potential users/developers > both commercial and otherwise. > > When a real architect puts together a plan, they > consider as many significant things as possible before > making the final blue print and certainly before > implementing. What a lot of OSS/free/libre hackers > do mistakenly is considering only the technical and > philisophical parameters. This is akin to designing > a sky-scraper without looking into building code. > Sounds good in class, sucks hairy ass in the > real world dude. > > If you want a reasonably complex program to succeed > and you think it's gonna need the support of some > of the big boys, you better start thinking about > what makes them happy too. This is where you can > take that GNU diatribe and flush it down the > toilet. This doesn't make sense and doesn't have any good arguments. I know at least one company with the GNU philosophy which succeed and that's cygnus. > The GNU licenses in general were holding back > a lot of commercial support for quite some time. > I personally pinged RMS on a couple issues which > would have been simple to correct. But the guy > _insists_ on maintaining his personal philisophical > spewing agenda. When he could have simply corrected > problems at no real expense, and gained earlier > support. I don't see why the GPL is holding back commercial support. I think it's rather the other way around, because of the GPL companies are sure a competitor isn't going to make their code non-free, add extensions to it and sell it for a lot of money. The developers of a program know the program better than anybody, I don't think a company should fear a competitor is going take a lot of customers away. So I don't see why the GPL is holding back commercial support. I also don't see any issues, I hope you will tell me if you see some. > So back to your comment. GPL was _not_ acceptable > to previous relationships of mine, and LGPL was > the one people voted most for. But why isn't it acceptable _now_? It can be changed easily. > > There might be a reason for reinventing stuff. Maybe to do it better, or > > because you have another goal in mind. > > Your point is well taken - sometimes you gotta reinvent > stuff. What people are talking about is borrowing components > from other projects. Which means, necessarily there > needs to be some commonality in an architecture to > facilitate that sharing. Or one mother-fscking big > hack which is unmanageable. > > If you want something new, persue something new. If you > wanna borrow/share other code, persue a modular and common > interface. Otherwise don't bother. I totally agree. > Also, if you want to borrow code, then that code > has to be innately "shareable" by license. Therefore, > architecture interfaces and license should be part > of the original blue-print. If you work backwards > from such potentialities as code sharing, perhaps > it's more clear that A) people who start projects > never really thought through the license decision > and B) the GNU people are steering people in the > wrong direction, posing the LGPL as "lesser". In > fact it is more open, has less encumberances, more > flexible, and promotes the spirit and principal > of open/free/libre software more than GPL. That > said, it is not perfect and needs a fix-up by somebody > who's mind is not on auto-repeat. Most people think of licenses, but IMHO the GPL is the right license for almost anything. The LGPL is lesser because it doesn't ensure the users freedom as much as the GPL. I think the GPL promotes free software fine and a lot of people agree with that. I don't see in what way the GPL needs to be fixed. It's a good license and it does the thing for which it was created. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
