[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [OS:N:] Why Microsoft was right about Linux



The GPL prevents people from using the code to build other projects upon
it that are not also GPL'd.

I also don't believe that you can "take back" GPL'd code.  You can
certainly change your code and sell it under a different license (IE: 
Mysql) but once you release it under the GPL it will always be available
as GPL.

The issue that Gates is right about is that someone can not take that
GPL code and use it in their programs for which they intend to charge.
(Something that M$ is widely reported to have done with much of their
technology....) 

They could however take it and change it...and re-release under the GPL.

Do you see the difference?  It destroys the ability to create anything
upon it that is not also GPL.

Not all licenses do that.  LGPL/FreeBSD License for example allow for
the creation of code with a closed license code upon the top of it.  

A GPL piece of code is a gift that keeps on giving.  

It's a good thing for humanity...not a good thing for software vendors. 

... so Gates is right.


Chris

On Fri, 2003-01-24 at 11:56, Konstantin Riabitsev wrote:
> Chris Spencer wrote:
> > This article is of course wrong about GPL = Open Source.  Gates is right
> > though.  A GPL is an "an intellectual-property destroyer."
> 
> Weird. I've released a bunch of projects under GPL, yet they still 
> are my intellectual property. I still own the code and can do with 
> it whatever I wish, including selling it for money, telling people 
> "hey, you, I don't like you! You can't use my code!" and such.
> 
> It is my code and I can do with it whatever I wish, including 
> releasing (and re-releasing) it under a license of my choice. GPL 
> puts no prohibitions on the use of my software, but severly limits 
> what other people can and can't do with the code itself. All 
> licenses do this, whether open-source or proprietary.
> 
> The only way you can "destroy" intellectual property of a work is by 
> placing it in public domain. While there is a (c) somewhere in the 
> code, someone still owns that code and you can't use it if your use 
> of it violates the license under which this code was given to you.
> 
> Regards,
-- 
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary 
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." 
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]