Re: GNAT GPL 2005: Too clever by half?

[Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>]

>>>>> "Chad" == Chad R Meiners <chad.rmeiners@gmail.com> writes:

    Chad> I've watched Stallman speak.  He is either a liar or
    Chad> delusional about the nature of the GPL.  I use to be a
    Chad> strong supporter of the GPL, but when I heard Stallman
    Chad> speak, I thought, "This man is nuts!".  He wants us to give
    Chad> up the right to decide how we are to be compensated for our
    Chad> labor with respect to software.

Just because you dislike Stallman isn't really a good reason to
dislike the GPL IMHO.

I believe as the copyright owner you have the right to decide how your
software will be used. Hence I don't think the GPL is any more "viral"
then other licenses that exist, e.g. "not available for commercial
use". In fact, the GPL is considerably more flexible then such a
license.

    Chad> P.S.  In general, I support free software; however, I
    Chad> disagree with trying to force people to release free
    Chad> software.  This in my opinion is not "free software".  If we
    Chad> the users are not allow the copyright rights over works that
    Chad> we created by using the so called "free software" to write
    Chad> and compile, the users aren't really free are they?

I think it is inappropriate having a run-time library required by a
compiler impose license restrictions on the code you compile.

The code I write is *my* code, not Adacore's code, and I think the
decision on how I should license should be up to me. It should also be
entirely up to me what other libraries I link with - using openssl
should be acceptable.

Having said that, I would be considerably happier if the restriction
was "software must adhere with the DFSG" as opposed to "software must
be GPL or GPL compatible".
-- 
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>