Re: [tlug] Yes! Another argument about the GPL! You knew you wanted it....

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Curt Sampson writes:
 > On 2009-08-12 11:02 +0900 (Wed), JC Helary wrote:

 > I really dislike the word "propose" for "you may not use this
 > property except under the exact conditions I specify."  A proposal
 > to me implies an invitation to negotiate, and the GPL is certainly
 > not that.

Certainly it's inaccurate to say "the GPL proposes".  The GPL is a set
of conditions, not a party to the decision.  But it would not be
incorrect to say that the owner of the copyright proposes the GPL in
the case of wholly-owned software.  You certainly *can* (and many do)
negotiate in those circumstances.

IMO, the problem is that the clear intent of the GPL is to allow many
independently developed derivatives.  By now one would hope that they
are a common case, implying that much GPL software is multiowner as is
Linux, and XEmacs for that matter.  In that case the distributor has
no choice.  And it is also certain that the intent of the GPL to
create as much such "license lock-in" as possible.