Re: [tlug] Bill Gates and the GPL , let the flames begin

["Kenneth Burling" <burlingk@example.com>]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 4:11 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@example.com> wrote:

Joe Larabell writes:

 > Exactly... The difference, of course, is that it probably took a
 > lot more time to write the million-line office suite than the
 > 10-line application. And therein lies the rub. The source code
 > itself is not the thing that has value -- that's just bits on a
 > wire or a magnetic patter. What has value is the time that went
 > into creating it.

Sorry, the labor theory of value was exploded in 1871 (only 3 years
after Karl Marx finished elaborating its contradictions).  The source
code (which is not "bits on a wire"!) does have value in itself, as do
the binaries produced by compiling and/or linking it.

What we are arguing about here is the *difference* between the value
of the program in use to users (whether end users or programmers of
derivatives) and the value of the time used to produce the original
program to its developer.  Who gets to keep that surplus?  The goal
of the free software movement is to ensure that those who *did not
produce the software* have an overriding right to it.  Hm ....

 > Isn't that what the GPL is basically about: enforced sharing?

"Enforced sharing"?  Another one for etc/OXYMORONS!  (This is
*precisely* what Curt finds hard to swallow, I suspect.)

Wasn't totaly sure where to snip on this one...

Anyway, I think that when it all comes down to it, some licenses are good, and some licenses suck.  Which are which is up to the individual to decide.

I am in favor of the more open licenses (BSD etc).  The sandbox analogy does not work for me, because when I look at a program, I do not see "sand" per say.  Even with an infinite amount of sand, if a person comes in with a bucket and carries part of it off, there will still be less sand, just not enough less for us to percieve.

If  someome makes a copy of my code however, and modifies it, then I have lost nothing even if he/she does not share.  The moral weight is on their shoulder to share or not.  I would hope that they would share that code with others, but if they do not, then in the end MY part of the code, the part that I created is still open.  All that is impared is their work not mine.  They can choose to do what THEY want with THEIR work.  Mine will still be availably by whatever means they used to get it.

In the end (and ths is what someone else said before me I think, just reworded), each programmer chooses the licenses they want to use and the ones they are willing to use.  For instance, I will happily work with the BSD licens, the GNU license family v2.x and older, and other licenses written in a similar spirit.  However at the moment, GPL3 being in use will make me question whether or not I really need to use a program as an end user, much less as a developer.

That is my choice.  It does not have to be yours.  :-)  Does this mean I won't use GPLv3 programs in my day to day life?  Probably not.  At the moment that chunk of arcain verbage holds a seat on the shelf right next to the MS EULA...  It is a necessary evil until I have the time to find replacements for everything that uses licenses that I find to be more philisophically compatible.

However, I am not going to say that they have to license things the way I like.  I just won't borrow their code.  To follow another analogy, they can just keep their ball.  :P  No matter how pretty it may be, if I cannot allow others to use it as they wish after I am done changing it, then it is not worth my time to mess with.

Again, borrowing analogies. GPL v2 could be compared to a set of rules for playing on the playground.  They grated on some people's nerves at times, but they all made sense.  Pretty much, share and share alike, everyone is invited.

GPL v3 is more like some guy moved into the same playground, and brought along a bunch of two hundred pound friends with baseball bats...  Now you gotta get checked in at the gate and if they don't like you, you might make it out alive.  And of course the authorities aren't sure what to do about it, becuase the new playground rules are so confusing that they are still trying to figure out if the big guys are legaly thugs or security.  And yeah, if you try to leave the playground, they are going to make sure to knock all the sand off before you go.