Alan,
> You are right in that open source is good at spreading algorithms but no
> one should be locked out by decree. Thus the licensing of software is
> critical; the GNU GPL license including Copyleft is not to be confused with
> something like Python; from the Python web site:
>
> "The Python implementation is under an open source license that makes it
> freely usable and distributable, even for commercial use"
>
> In regards to GNU GPL; never in the history of literature has the words
> "freedom" and "choice" been so misrepresented; they stand behind their
> lawyers. How much of the software under GNU GPL license have been developed
> using computers provided by institutes - was it really a hobby.
>
> Fox is under GNU GPL - not very helpful to society in a general sense
> wouldn't you say.
Many people do seem to find Fox helpful. But as for the license, what the
GPL says is that if you want to redistribute a modified version of the
software, you should give away as much as the original author - modified
parts should be opened too. I do not find this exaggerated.
As for GPL code written using public money, should the 'public' source code
be used for closed source applications - that is debatable.
Of course the GPL is inconvenient for many commercial software - because
they want to keep secret parts of the software, so opening the source is
unacceptable. Which does not mean they can't use it - just look at all the
embedded electronics (routers, smart TVs, DVD players) : a lot are running
Linux. Even Fox could be distributed on CDs by X-ray companies - as long as
they do not modify the source code they have exactly 0 obligations to me.
I believe the ideal licensing uses a dual approach (1) provide the source
code as GPL to encourage others to provide their modifications and (2) allow
another closed-source licensing to be available, at a price. That way
everybody is happy.
When Fox was first released it was under an artistic license - very
permissive - and after I left Geneva and started making all the modifications
from home, I decided (with Radovan) that if people wanted to make money by
adding features to Fox they would have to discuss first with us for a
different license, or release the source code.
I agree with you that freedom cannot and should not be mandated by decree -
if one day someone mandates all software to be available only under a
copyleft license I'll stand by you against it. But right now we are very far
from that, open-source authors are much vulnerable than commercial because of
patents. Global minimum is somewhere in the middle between 'all software
patented, closed' and 'all software opened, copyleft' - I'd say on that axis
we are 20% from the left limit, and the Nature policy seems to me a small
step in the right direction, but we should not overshoot.
Vincent
--
Vincent Favre-Nicolin
Université Joseph Fourier
http://v.favrenicolin.free.fr
ObjCryst & Fox : http://objcryst.sourceforge.net
