Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
Ray Smith wrote:
>
(snip)
>
> Hi Gary,
>
> I pretty much agree with what you say.
>
> Here is the crunch though ....
>
> "if" Euphoria is open sourced as public domain or a BSD type license ...
>
> will "everyone" be happy to submit code to "open eu" under this license ...
>
> knowing someone else can come along and use their code in a closed source
> proprietary language/application?
They don;t have to...
*If* Euphoria were open sourced as public domain or under a X11 or BSD type
license...
and you made a GPLed fork of euphoria (which those licenses would allow you to
do)...
will "everyone" be happy to submit code to "Free Eu" under that license...
knowing that they are required to release their code under a license which has
firm restricts on what they can and can't do with it whereas "Open Eu" allows you
to do whatever you want with it?
I like having my own rights over my own code. I like being able to choose to
release my work commercially or give it away for everyone to use under pretty
much any license I choose. The GPL does not allow this. This is why I like the
BSD and X11 licenses, they give me those rights. The BSD license allows someone
to release a derivative work of it under the GPL if they so desire. The GPL does
not allow the opposite, you can not put any other restrictions at all on the
code.
> The people arguing for BSD or Public Domain are saying I want to use Euphoria
> source code in closed source apps.
> This "will" stop some people from submitting bug fixes, enhancements etc to
> Euphoria. How many, I obviously don't know ... but some people won't want
> "their" submitted code used in closed source apps.
...then they can choose to release it under the GPL or a similarly restrictive
license.
However, GPLed code is open for everyone to see. So regardless of the license,
any new functionality in open sourced code could be put back in for everyone to
use "in closed source apps" by simply rewriting it so as to not create a
"derivative work" of the original and open sourcing it as BSD/X11.
> And for those people who think they will make modifications and make and
> sell a new language ... WAKE UP ... unless you are Microsoft you won't
> be selling more than a couple of copies to anyone.
Arguably, I could easily see it happening in some cases.
> The number of high quality open source, free languages and environments
> have already won.
I originally was going to put "Arguably" but instead I'm going to say "Patently
false".
If they have already won why do people still pay for commercial, proprietary
languages and environments?
> I think it possible to sell some add on products, like if someone wrote an
> amazing debugger for open eu ... or other tools, you may sell a few copies,
> but no one is going to be selling a new or derived language in this day and
> age.
Hey, you never know. We could see Microsoft Visual Eu.NET in a few years for all
we know.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
