Licenses etc. (was: Re: [antlr-interest] Re: Antlr Studio is cool.)

[Matthew Tedder]

Paul et al,

  Indeed, "derrivative work" is defined by legal
precident.  Trying to redefine this term would only
serve the lengthen the GPL creating more potential for
different interpretations.

  It's very simple, for the right to include GPL'd
code into your own code, you must in exchange make
your code GPL licensed.  Many commercial organizations
also like this clause, such as for electronic
transaction protocols in the financial industry.  It
has largely stopped a culture of embrace and extend,
and forced firms to compete on merit, not attempt to
monopolize (at least in this one respect).  Note that
you can bundle GPL'd software, but you cannot mix
actually source code with your own.

  While some software developers don't understand the
GPL, the GPL and BSD licenses are nevertheless the
most widely known software license in existence.  Due
to this uniformity, these two licenses bring far more
assurance than any others in existance.  Companies
(and people) who think it's confusing can have those
opinions, but they are far better known and understood
than any others... To deny that is ignorance.

  And about the "viral GPL" FUD, if you mistakenly
include GPL'd code in your code and try to license
your code incompatibly with the GPL, it does not make
your code automatically GPL'd.  The GPL says it simply
terminates your right to use the GPL'd code.  You must
stop shipping it.  Comparatively, what would happen if
any company A discovered that company B included some
of their proprietary code into their product?  The
viral argument is also rediculous because it couldn't
do that legally, anyway.

  So stop bashing the GPL... Especially when you
demonstrate a blatant lack of understanding of it. 

  I am not bashing Terrance's choice of BSD.  It's
good choice, as far as I am concerned.

Matthew

--- Paul Johnson <gt54-antlr at cyconix.com> wrote:

> Anthony Youngman wrote:
> > The thing with the GPL is that it does NOT prevent
> an author selling his
> > own work. If Prashant wants to sell Antlr Studio,
> that is his moral
> > right.
> > 
> > What the GPL does (and is intended to do) is stop
> *you* selling *my*
> > work (and cutting me out of the loop).
> 
> Not quite - you can charge whatever you want for
> GPL'ed work, whoever 
> wrote it. The GPL has nothing to do with money. Two
> quotes:
> 
> > When we speak of free software, we are referring
> to freedom, not price.
> 
> > You may charge a fee for the physical act of
> transferring a copy, and
> > you may at your option offer warranty protection
> in exchange for a
> > fee.
> 
> Note that the second quote refers to any GPL'ed
> software - not, for 
> example, your own work or your derivative of a
> GPL'ed work. There is no 
> definition of what a fee is, and no statement that
> it should be 
> 'reasonable'.
> 
> The GPL has many problems, not the least of which is
> the definition of a 
> 'derivative' work. It's not clear at what point you
> become obliged to 
> distribute a copy of your own source code if you
> include any GPL'ed 
> source in your code. That's why real-world
> commercial organisations 
> don't like it. A second issue is that, if you do
> charge a lot of money 
> to distribute your own (or someone else's) work,
> then there's nothing to 
> stop a third party also distributing that work for
> gratis.
> 
> IMHO, the GPL is simply a religious manifesto, and
> is a pile of crock. 
> Ter has cut right through this with his own licence,
> which is a model of 
> simplicity and clarity. I would love to know what
> happened in that phone 
> conversation with Richard Stallman...
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com