RE: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!
D. Newhall wrote:
> 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.
You have the situation completely backwards.
The GPL allows software to stay open and free. The whole purpose of the
GPL.
Of course you can't copy code and re-use it in a non GPL project. That
would be stealing. I have never heard of a company policy of
programmers aren't allowed to look at GPL code (I have no doubt they
exist) but I'd be pretty certain it is the vast minority.
The GPL exists to stop people stealing code and re-using it in a non
free software based project.
Yes, developers have to be careful not to "copy" GPL'd code!!!!
Learning from it is 100% fine. Unless an algorithm has a patent there
is no reason why a programmer can't write their "own" version of an
algorithm, as long as they don't copy from the GPL'd source code.
> 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.
No, you don't have to distribute the source code. You have to make it
available to users of the software.
It isn't a big burden, how difficult is it to zip up your source
directory and FTP it to a server?
It's actually a huge feature of open source and free software.
> 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.
The GPL free's the software for users and protects the software for the
developers.
There are some cases where GPL code causes problems, mostly to do with
closed source device drivers from hardware vendors (and also some DRM
software).
I'm 99.99% sure this won't effect Euphoria!
> 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.
You can't copy GPL code and put it in non GPL'd software.
Just like you can't copy propietry code and put in your software!
You must be living under a rock, Open Source is the new growth area of
I.T. Developers with open source experience are in high demand.
> 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.
What is shocking about the text of the GPL?
It is written for normal people to read, but is still very rigid in it's
purpose. What reasons would the GPL fail? What are you worried about?
> 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.
Yes, creators have rights, they have the right to use the GPL or not to.
No one has ever forced anyone to publish code under the GPL.
If you don't want to be bound by the GPL don't release any code under a
GPL license or use any one else's GPL code in your project.
Derek, I have a feeling that my response won't change your mind.
Have a look around at all the GPL projects out there and tell me how
they are suffering under the GPL?
I'm not saying the GPL is the answer for everything.
It is a great license for development tools and languages though.
Have a nice day,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
