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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,1d8ab55e71d08f3d X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1efdd369be089610 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dweller@news.imagin.net (David Weller) Subject: Re: GLADE and GPL (was: what DOES the GPL really say?) Date: 1997/06/27 Message-ID: <5p0eum$1293$1@prime.imagin.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 252955961 References: <33B2B5C8.41A0@does.not.exist.com> <5ousck$6rj@kiwi.ics.uci.edu> Organization: ImagiNet Communications Ltd, Arlington, Texas Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1997-06-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <5ousck$6rj@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >If you just want to receive credit for your work, and don't have the >attitude that all derivatives must be LGPL/GPL'd, then just use the >Ada Community License. Your project will be much more useful to others, >and more successful in the long run. > Well, I don't know about the "more successful" part -- that depends on how good the software is anyway :-) I've been following this thread for a little bit, and I'd like to toss in my opinion (what th' heck, right?). The significant difference between the GPL and the ACL is much like the difference between capitalism and communism*. The GPL assumes all users are sinners, and takes the approach of requiring the users to affirm, by usage of GPL'ed code, that they will not unfairly exploit the free software they are taking advantage of. There's all sorts of legal stuff in there that basically prevents people from exploiting various loopholes. The ACL is a more open approach, assuming that people will not unfairly exploit the software under looser "guidelines" (well, not really "guidelines", but certainly less onerous than the GPL's terms). The Library GPL and the "ACT exception" to the LGPL are two licensing terms that fall between (if the GNU folks will permit me this comparison) the GPL and the ACL. Certainly one can say that the ACL muddies the waters, but, being a Perl fanatic that I also am (sorry, Brian! :-), I've seen the Perl Artistic License used quite successfully -- without all the "baggage" of something like the GPL. One final comment: I think the GPL and the LGPL have their place in our profession. I also would like to think that you could use GPL'ed code in _any_ situation, but in the "grey" areas, you need to write to the author to get a statement on whether your intended usage falls within what the perceive to be the licensing terms. Obviously, that's more difficult with "multi-source" software like GCC. Just remember that the GNU licenses are designed to prohibit unscrupulous profiting of other people's work. If you don't think you are, and the GNU licenses interfere, there's also no reason why you can't plead with the author(s) to modify the terms of their license -- that's perfectly legal. *Of course, there's the "other" saying that says: In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it's just the opposite :-)