Re: future of quail
Julian Bradfield <jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
On 2011-02-15, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
> Julian Bradfield <jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
>> Why? The GPL is carefully, deliberately and explicitly designed to
>> behave like a contaminant (or virus, if you prefer).
>
> Nonsense. If there is anything acting like a contaminant or virus, it
> is copyright. You can't integrate or redistribute _any_ software from
> third parties short of an explicit license.
David, please switch off your emotional commitment, and turn on your
intellect.
The world would be a very nice place if contaminants and viruses were
things that prevented their own redistribution. We'd never get ill, or
poisoned! The common cold would not exist!
The GPL is carefully, deliberately and explicitly designed so that
incorporating a piece of GPL code into any other distributed piece of
software makes that software have the GPL.
No, that is simply wrong. The GPL is carefully, deliberately and
explicitly designed so that you can only redistribute software based on
the GPL under the GPL, or not at all. Since the normal software
licenses are designed such that you can't redistribute software at all
in the first place, the GPL "infection" does not change the resulting
situation one bit.
You are free to extend GPLed software with software of your _own_. If
you choose to license the resulting whole under the GPL, you can
redistribute it. If you choose not to license the resulting whole under
the GPL, you can use it for any purpose you like except redistribution.
There is _no_, I repeat, _no_ automatism with which any software of
yours comes under the GPL magically. There is no infection. If _you_
choose to infect the GPLed software with material that you never want to
be licensed under the GPL, the result is simply sterile (namely you
can't redistribute it), but still functional.
But the GPL does _not_, I repeat _not_, magically extend to software
that you don't want to have it extend to. If _you_ don't choose to
license your own pieces of software under the GPL, they will not be
licensed under the GPL, period.
In contrast to contaminating your software with the usual propriatary
licensed stuff, you will _still_ be allowed to run and use it yourself
for any purpose you want. In contrast to proprietary licensed stuff,
you retain the option _if_ _you_ _want_ _to_ to relicense the combined
software under the GPL and redistribute it.
You don't need to, and you still will be able to do anything with your
software that a combination with proprietary software will let you do,
most likely more.
The virus analogy is quite simply a good analogy. Don't get hung
up on
the fact that some viruses are nasty. Some are beneficial.
The point in verbiage like "virus" or "contamination" is that
something
happens that is not under your control, with bad consequences. With GPL
licensed software, everything remains under your control. It is _your_
personal option whether you want to make use of the rights granted by
the GPL (but not by proprietary licenses) or not.
No "infection" or "contamination" is involved here. Your software
will
_never_ be licensed anything other than that which you _explicitly_
license it under. There is no automatism.
The viral nature doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. I
distribute
my own software under the GPL too, for convenience. But if anybody
asks me, they can negotiate other licences - BSD, for example. They
can even pay me money for it!
An infection/contamination which you can switch on and off at will even
after first full contact. Don't you really see how _absurdly_ you have
been swallowed in by licensing propaganda?
> Do you call the Microsoft EULA a contaminant or virus? It
allows
> Microsoft to remotely destroy your computer and data without your
> agreement or compensation if they think it useful in order to try
> implementing new Digital Rights Management schemes on your hardware.
It doesn't self-replicate, and it doesn't impose its own terms on
other companies' EULAs.
Neither does the GPL. So where is your point?
> People are fine with licenses that essentially allow rootkitting
and
> bricking your computer.
Not my problem. If they don't like it, they don't have to use Windows.
If they don't mind, whom am I to tell them they should?
Who am you to tell them that licenses that can have all the ill effects
of computer viruses and worse are _not_ a virus, while a license that
does not, _is_?
> The right answer is "how are any of the GPL's terms more
restricting
> than those of software licenses you don't call names?". And of
> course
GPL is more restrictive than BSD. BSD does not require you to release
your own software under BSD if you incorporate BSD software.
Do you deny that?
Where is the point if a license does not require me to heed any terms,
but if I actually use those permissions in order to slap the GPL on
software derived from it, everybody will be calling me an immoral pig
and thief?
It's more honest if I get to hear and read the conditions under which I
am _supposed_ to use the software up front.
It is obvious that you are not inclined thinking about who to call what
for what reason. But probably somebody else will think twice before
following your example.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta