From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac39a12d5faf5b14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-22 07:27:49 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Development process in the Ada community Date: 22 Apr 2002 07:27:49 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <4519e058.0204220627.4da138a8@posting.google.com> References: <5ee5b646.0204200830.2bd258d2@posting.google.com> <3CC1DEF2.4060204@telepath.com> <+JjhQCmJYCyP@eisner.encompasserve.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.115.221.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1019485669 13523 127.0.0.1 (22 Apr 2002 14:27:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Apr 2002 14:27:49 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22915 Date: 2002-04-22T14:27:49+00:00 List-Id: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<+JjhQCmJYCyP@eisner.encompasserve.org>... > In article <3CC1DEF2.4060204@telepath.com>, Ted Dennison writes: > > tmoran@acm.org wrote: > > > >>>The GPL is merely a software license that gives users of your software > >>>more rights ... > >>> > >> Different, not More. A set of rights is not one-dimensional with an > >> obvious ordering. > > > > > > I'd say different, and almost always more. I've certianly never read a > > shrink-wrap software license that gives me as much freedom as the GPL. > > Usually they say you can't do anything, and then list a few exceptions > > (eg: install on one machine, make one backup copy, etc). The GPL bascily > > says I can do anything, then lists a few exceptions. > > That is in the end-user dimension. > > The licensing for many commercial libraries included into other products > allows modifications to those libraries without distributing those changes. > Those libraries allow "more" in the software vendor dimension. Errr...The GPL *also* allows modifications to GPL-ed software without distributing those changes. It also allows modifications *with* distributing the changes, under some circumstances. I have yet to see how anyone has less freedom this way. As fate would have it, today Eben Moglen, the lawyer for the FSF, has put an article up at http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html that touches on this very subject. (Those of you who don't like reading "GPL propaganda" would do well to skip the first two paragraphs). His basic thesis is that defending the GPL is a breeze compared to other licenses, becuase other licenses generally try to make you trade some of your legal rights away, while the GPL just *gives* you rights that you would not otherwise have. -- T.E.D. Home - mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison) Homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html