Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
20 New User Misconceptions about Linux
mwb1100:
You can't un-GPL something later on, or otherwise try to get it back by adding proprietary elements to it. Because those will also fall immediately under GPL if you do.
-40hz (February 24, 2011, 01:19 PM)
--- End quote ---
This is only half correct. Once you GPL something and distribute it, you can't remove the GPL rights that you've essentially already passed on to someone else for what they have.
However, GPL doen't remove *your* ownership of the code (or whatever) - you can rerelease the code under whatever other terms you like (even simultaneously). As the owner - *you* are not obligated to the GPL terms for subsequent releases (modified or not).
Several companies release products under GPL and simultaneously under a non-GPL license for paying customers who don't want to be under the terms of the GPL. For example:
- Nokia releases Qt under an LGPL license, or you can pay for the software under different terms that won't subject you to LGPL terms
- Quantum Leaps licenses their embedded RTOS products under the GPL as well as a commercial license
From the FSF's GPL FAQ:
Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?
Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a “violation” of the GPL.
However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the community.-http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DeveloperViolate
--- End quote ---
Paul Keith:
Once you GPL something, you relinquish all control of your source and what people do with it. It's a one way thing. You can't un-GPL something later on, or otherwise try to get it back by adding proprietary elements to it. Because those will also fall immediately under GPL if you do. You could create proprietary add-ons I suppose. Some places do that. Or try. But that still doesn't hand control of your originally GPLed program back to you.
--- End quote ---
Once someone GPLs something, they don't really need to un-GPL it. In fact, that would be marketing suicide even IF it was possible to do that.
You could create proprietary add-ons I suppose. Some places do that. Or try. But that still doesn't hand control of your originally GPLed program back to you.
--- End quote ---
...or proprietary Operating Systems hence the frying pan analogy.
If you're saying a company could GPL something and make it free in order to deep-six a small competitor who didn't have deep enough pockets to compete against a free product...well, why would they want to GPL the freebie? Why not just give it away, keep the proprietary license, and then start charging for it once the competitor goes out of business? You don't need to get involved with GPL to do that. Microsoft used a similar strategy to price Novell out of the market after Microsoft released NT Server. They just made the original release dirt cheap compared to Novell and used the opening they created (and what money they did get) to drastically improve NT until it was as good, and later, better than Novell.
--- End quote ---
Because then you're missing a huge chunk of the Open Source cult. Microsoft is the most exposed competitor defending their turf.
Tons of these other applications like Chrome and Firefox weren't going to just usurp IE or hell even convince Netscape users to just move to them.
They needed some symbol of goodness. An invisible enemy to rally the righteous. Something like WMDs to start the descent of war.
After that, they need to be faster and more rapid at building the community. It doesn't matter if they can't Un-GPL something. It's not like you can't create and sell commercial GPL software. What you really want is people believing you not only won't do no evil but you want slave add-on makers developing improvements for your frying pan all while the brand is mostly going towards the pan.
FSF keeps saying this
--- End quote ---
They also said alot of other things, sometimes it feels like they create a strawman where they expect the person talking to not have known what they are talking about so they can re-direct it into canned responses when GPL is far from needing a FAQ but a distinct separation between bandwagons and core philosophers understanding the difference between each of their actions and reactions towards the GPL.
GPL something and it's code is no longer yours. You've given it away to the entire World. Forever.
--- End quote ---
Again, same thing happened with the clock. Same thing happened with the Bible. I don't really know why this is such a hard thing for FSF sometimes to understand.
They set the GPL to prevent this issue, not to beat this issue like a dead horse.
Even back then, pre-GPL, you could give something away to the World forever. What Stallman originally understood was that it wasn't enough. There was a potential flaw. GPL wasn't bringing something new. It was defending against something old. The fact that today it's been sort of reversed just mostly due to the convenience of many open source software compared to the original days, doesn't mean open source suddenly becomes the liberator rather than the templar.
It's a lot like some hardcore Linux users. They are so closed to converting users into Linux. Just a little bit more attitude towards gratis than closed club house preacher and RTFM could have easily been WWWTM (What's wrong with this manual?) ...and Linux users would have an easier time converting people just a tiny bit and making up for all the shortcomings of Linux but only a few do that and we get this circular argument where valid arguments become cliche arguments just because the source of the concept becomes hijacked by the wrong fundamentalists on a cult level.
Finally...+1 to what mwb1100 said.
Edit: Woops. Sorry for the rant about FSF.
rxantos:
My only gripe with the FSF is their use of the phrase "FREE SOFTWARE". They state that is based on freedom but fail to indicate that the freedom of the consumer is at the cost of freedom for the developer. A license is never about freedom. Public domain is about freedom.
Public Domain : Do whatever you want.
BSD : Do whatever you want as long as you do not hold me liable for anything. And, if you distribute the source, you give me credit by keeping this license somewhere in the source.
LGPL: I allow you to use this library as long as you give me credit. Do not hold me liable for anything. And make sure that ANY change you made to it you put it back into LGPL or GPL. And if you distribute a compiled copy you must promise to send a cd of the code to whoever ask for it.
GPL : I allow you to use this code. You cannot hold me liable for anything. You give me credit. You make sure that any changes made are made public under the same license. If you use even one line of this code on your own code, your code must also be put on the same license. And if you distribute a compiled copy you must promise to send a cd of the code to whoever ask for it.
As for linux, it have come a long way since its humble beginnings. Still have its bugs here and there, but overall it competes well with windows, OSX and BSD.
kalos:
(see attachment in previous post)
Matt Hartley's points are true to my experience. Point is, not to believe the rumors, rumors about rumors, and counter-rumors! ;D
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3925611_1/20-New-User-Misconceptions-about-Linux.htm
-zridling (February 22, 2011, 06:10 PM)
--- End quote ---
did you notice that his "Linux video games" link says client=Safari? lol he praises linux, while he is on a mac (or even Windows)?
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3925611_2/20-New-User-Misconceptions-about-Linux.htm
Renegade:
My only gripe with the FSF is their use of the phrase "FREE SOFTWARE". They state that is based on freedom but fail to indicate that the freedom of the consumer is at the cost of freedom for the developer. A license is never about freedom. Public domain is about freedom.
Public Domain : Do whatever you want.
BSD : Do whatever you want as long as you do not hold me liable for anything. And, if you distribute the source, you give me credit by keeping this license somewhere in the source.
LGPL: I allow you to use this library as long as you give me credit. Do not hold me liable for anything. And make sure that ANY change you made to it you put it back into LGPL or GPL. And if you distribute a compiled copy you must promise to send a cd of the code to whoever ask for it.
GPL : I allow you to use this code. You cannot hold me liable for anything. You give me credit. You make sure that any changes made are made public under the same license. If you use even one line of this code on your own code, your code must also be put on the same license. And if you distribute a compiled copy you must promise to send a cd of the code to whoever ask for it.
As for linux, it have come a long way since its humble beginnings. Still have its bugs here and there, but overall it competes well with windows, OSX and BSD.
-rxantos (February 24, 2011, 02:52 PM)
--- End quote ---
On the public domain side, I think you can add this license in the same category: NSFW - the WTFPL license. :)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version