Re: The problem with gnuplot
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 02:32:10PM -0600, Eldon Koyle wrote:
> On Aug 16 11:42-0400, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > There are potentially many free licenses, many of which you may not be
> > allowed to combine in the way you want. Potentially, this means that
> > you should not regard the GPL as a free license (for libraries?),
> > because it limits what you can do.
> The reason for this is very simple. The GPL protects the interests of
> those who write the code. If it allowed me to link to a proprietary
> library, I could take some GPL'ed code and make my own libraries that
> make it do some neat stuff, sell the binaries and only have to
> distribute the GPL'ed part of the source. This defeats the purpose of
> the GPL, does it not? Might as well be a BSD "do whatever you want with
> it, just keep this little notice in the code" license. The GPL
> exists to keep people from taking advantage of those who write free
> software, and to be sure that said software _stays_ free. It cannot do
> this without _some_ restrictions, however the restrictions are fair.
> Does this make GPL'ed software less free? I would submit that it
> makes said software more free, by ensuring that it will stay free.
I'm not arguing either way; but I have a mild objection when people
say that the GNUPlot license isn't free. It isn't free because they
can't do what they want, but the same applies to the GPL, for
sufficiently large wants.