Re: "proprietary", was Re: ada on linux

[Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <anhY4.1121$M72.360470@news.pacbell.net>,
  tmoran@bix.com wrote:

> If Jones writes a program, can he offer it under different
> licensing arrangement to different people, one of those
> arrangements being the GPL?

If "Jones" is the sole holder of the copyright on said program, yes. To
avoid this potential route of imprisoning software for the Linux kernel,
Linus makes sure that everyone who makes a significant contribution to a
kernel source gets a piece of the copyright. That way if someone wanted
the Linux kernel distributed under a different license, they'd have to
get the permission (iow: pay off) every copyright holder for every
kernel source file.

I took the same approach with OpenToken, for the same reason.


> >Certainly I understand that you (or rather the company you
> >work for) have decided to use restrictive licenses, and that
>   Calling other people's licenses "restrictive" and your own
> "absolutely free", is not, IMHO, a fair statement of the case.

In principle, perhaps not. In this particular case, yes it is (unless
RR's license has changed quite a bit from the last time I looked at it).

I highgly suggest you go up to www.gnu.org and look through the relevent
documents.

The definition of "Free Software" is at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html . It would be hard to argue
that RR's software fits this defintion better than ACT's. An excerpt:

-----
   ``Free software'' refers to the users' freedom to run, copy,
distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely,
it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

     The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
     The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a
     precondition for this.
     The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2).
     The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements
to the public, so that the whole community
     benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition
for this.
---

Also, you really should read the GPL. Its much shorter and eaiser to
follow than this thread. :-) Any good software engineer should be
capable of fully understanding it if they read it as they would a new
API; with an eye towards what it allows you to do and doesn't allow you
to do. The URL is:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

--
T.E.D.

http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.