RE: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!
Ray Smith wrote:
>
>
> You have the situation completely backwards.
> The GPL allows software to stay open and free. The whole purpose of the
> GPL.
Open source is open source no matter what license it uses so long as it stays
distributed. GPL does not magically make code any more open source than any other
license. An author can always close source new versions of their code (so long as
it's all their own) even if it is GPL. Previous versions of the software will
always be open so long as someone distributes them under the terms of their
licenses. This is the same with (almost) every license.
> 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.
Actually, I'd say it's probably the majority. Most companies are very protective
of their products and don't want anything to jeopardize their control over them.
Microsoft, for example, if I remember correctly, does not allow people in the
open source labs to transfer to another position because they might "taint" the
code. I and many people I know work at places that have similar requirements.
> The GPL exists to stop people stealing code and re-using it in a non
> free software based project.
Yes, but diverging a bit from the topic at hand, that's the main issue in a way.
For all its touting of protecting "freedoms" the GPL is one of the most
restrictive licenses out there. It restricts the use of the program in any . I'm
not saying that all code must be fully open (a programmer has the right to use
whatever license they wish) but it is restricting the code's use. There are other
licenses that allow you to use the code however you wish but keep the source code
open (I mentioned the MPL as an example). Why does non-"free" use need to be
stopped? Why can't people be allowed to use the code however they wish?
> 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.
Many would disagree since that's been one of the most complained about features
of the GPL recently. The leader of the MEPIS Linux distro said it was the biggest
problem for small distros because it's a massive drain on their resources and
money. Also, the cipherfunk website that made packages for MEPIS and Ubuntu shut
down because they couldn't afford to pay for the hosting of their code. Now, as I
said, this doesn't really effect Euphoria that much if at all (it only effects
things like Linux) but it's still a prominent complaint about 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!
> 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!
It'll effect the users who want to use some of the Euphoria code in a project
that is not GPL. It's not even the case of "free" versus "non-free" its the case
of GPL versus non-GPL. I don't use the GPL, I have strong reservations against it
(obviously), but I do a lot of open-source programming using a variety of more
open langauges (MPL, 4-clause BSD, and X11). Why punish those who want to allow
their code to be used anywhere not be able to use the Euphoria code?
> 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.
Quite true, and I am quite experienced in open source development and
applications and promote it whenever I can. However, I'm attacking the GPL's
notion of "free software", not open source.
> 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?
Primarily the whole preamble part but there are many places in the text that is
not very ambiguous. I'm worried that having a license that reads like some
philosophical rant might stand up in court. That, and the many ambiguities in the
text (for example, how do you define a "combined work"?)
> 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.
You misunderstand. I'm talking about moral rights under the legal definition.
Also, technically if you use GPL code you are in a way being forced into
releasing your code as GPL.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
