Re: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!
Kenneth Rhodes wrote:
>
>
> It might help if you would cite several specific reasons
> why you oppose the GPL or LGPL.
Here's a few reasons off the top of my head:
Viral nature:
The GPL "infects" any code it touches. This can even be expanded to code created
after viewing GPLed code in some cases. Think one of the memory allocation
algorithms Rob uses is nice? Well, you can't use it unless you want whatever you
use it in to be GPLed. Many projects and businesses don't allow their programmers
to even view GPLed code unless they know what they're doing. FreeBSD for example
has "tainted programmers" whose sole job is to simply look at GPLed code and then
design the specs for the other designers to keep everything completely open.
Distribution:
The GPL requires you to publish your *complete* source code so if you change a
single line you need to publish everything. This creates a burden on developers
because they need to front any costs due to distributing everything. Granted, the
source will most likely be small and we do have the Archives but it's going to
get redundant with every Euphoria modification repeating the exact same files
over and over again.
Lack of freedom:
Due mostly to its viral nature GPLed code is more restrictive than almost all
other open source licenses. Eric S. Raymond, the co-founder of the Open Source
Initiative, said last year that the GPL is in some cases restricting innovation
and advocated using the BSD license instead of the GPL.
Job restrictions:
Some companies forbid their programmers from working on GPLed programs due to
what they perceive (whether rightly or wrongly) as legal issues regarding their
code. One example I've heard of is that they feared that if their programmer
reused his code and he had previously distributed it as GPL then their product
could be endangered. Usually these companies only specify the GPL and similar
licenses and allow BSD and X11 licensed work. It would suck if someone couldn't
contribute to Euphoria due to where they work.
Legal issues:
While so far the GPL has won in the few court cases revolving around it I feel
that its still untested. If you read the GPL and then other license agreements
you're shocked by the text of the GPL. The GPL simply does not read like a
legally binding license which may in fact be a detriment to it.
Moral rights (Legal issues part 2)
Also, the GPL could possibly be broken easily if it was ruled that creators have
"moral rights" (in the legal sense) in regards to their source code. If they do
then it would most likely render the GPL completely useless since then you'd be
able to sue anyone who uses your work in a manner you disagree with.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
