Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Question: Does the GPL allow program redistribution?

<< < (3/5) > >>

f0dder:
Imho GPL software isn't free, by any means. It's enforced open (I certainly don't dislike openness!), and is usually gratis as well, but free?

Renegade:
Imho GPL software isn't free, by any means. It's enforced open (I certainly don't dislike openness!), and is usually gratis as well, but free?
-f0dder (October 03, 2007, 08:18 AM)
--- End quote ---

OH! I am SOOOO with you there!  :Thmbsup:

The GPL is NOT "free".

What drives me absolutely bonkers nuts blood-thirsty crazy is the incredible arrogance with which a couple of *free software* organizations purport to be authorities and define what it is to be "free" or "open". Their definitions are self-serving and extremely narrow.

I purchase commercial software that comes with source code once I buy the license. That's "open source". There's NO debate there. Zero. Nadda. Zilch. I get the source code once I purchase. It is then opened to me. Some will disagree. They are just wrong. Period. (Yes - I'm being a bit beligerent. I hate extremists and extremely narrow positions for broad definitions.)

The core problem for me is that the terms "free", "open source", "free software" and similar others are being hijacked. Those are normal English words with normal meanings that anyone should be able to understand without reading a trillion pages of nonsense. Trying to narrow down the definition for a broad term is simply wrong. Period.

Here's an example. Let's redefine "program"...

A program is a set of instructions that runs on a computer.

Wow. Cool! We're done!

Well... What about the program for an event at the local community center. A 12 step program for alcoholics... A...

It's just ridiculous for any organization to try and take control of a word or short phrase.

Ok - rant over.  :-[

mwb1100:
Calling the GPL evil is a bit too... religious.  The GPL is a tool that has a particular desired outcome. Just like any other license - even commercial licenses.

Now, I'm not a free software or GPL zealot, but I also don't consider it evil, or even bad.  One thing to keep in mind is that the GPL is *not* intended to make life easy for developers.  It's intended to make life easy for *users* of the software.  In fact, users of the software do not need to agree to *anything* to use GPL software.  The requirements of the GPL only apply when you are going to distribute software licensed under the GPL or software derived from GPL license software.

Let's compare it with some other licenses that you might come across - the GPL requires none of these things that you might come across in some (most) commercial licenses:


* you may only install the software on a single machine
* only a single person is allowed to use the software
* you must allow the software to phone home in order to use it
* you are not allowed to study how the program works
The GPL has none of those restrictions.  But remember - the idea is that this benefits the users, not necessarily developers.

Now, if you're a developer who sees some GPL software you'd like to use in your software, then  you have some hard choices.  But one option that's always open to you is to not use it - which is no worse than most commercial software, which never even gives you the option to derive your own software from it.

Are there better licenses from a developer's point of view?  Sure, and as Renegade mentions, some of those licenses might be commercial.

But that doesn't make the GPL evil - just unsuitable for what you might want.

Jibz:
Here is the reply from the FSF licensing people for your reference:

The position stated in the GPL FAQ is correct.  After careful review with
our attorneys, we concluded that the installer was a separate work from the
GPLed program it installs.  As a result, it is not a derivative work
subject to the GPL's terms.  You have our sincerest apologies for the
earlier confusion.-Licensing Compliance Engineer
--- End quote ---

f0dder:
Now, if you're a developer who sees some GPL software you'd like to use in your software, then  you have some hard choices.  But one option that's always open to you is to not use it - which is no worse than most commercial software, which never even gives you the option to derive your own software from it.
-mwb1100
--- End quote ---
The problem is, of course, with platforms where you can't really do anything but the really basic POSIX & libc stuff without having to use a GPL library, or reinvent the wheel. This gives non-GPL developers a great disadvantage. And that's one of the places where Windows has quite an advantage - the API is extremely rich, and doesn't really come with any limitations or silly clauses, only windows lock-in.

GPL itself isn't necessarily evil btw, I think it makes okay sense for the OS kernel... but for usermode applications? Naw. It's too arrogant... it's fine that any modifications to the piece of opensource code you use/modify should remain opensource, but imho it's wrong placing restrictions on the *rest* of the application.

Oh, and thanks for the clarification, Jibbo - although it wouldn't have surprised me if they wanted their first answer to your question to be the correct one ;)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page