Re: [OT] - Interesting politics and the GPL
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 20:34:38 -0700 Craig Dickson <crdic@pacbell.net>
wrote:
> Well, remember that corporations are taxpayers too. One could reasonably
> argue that it is just as improper to deny them the full use of publicly-
> funded code is it would be to deny any individual American citizen.
Under the GPL, they have access to the code just as any other individual.
They (the corporations) simply may not like the fact that they can no
longer easily "embrace and extend" or get a (relatively) free
hand-out/head-start on their next proprietary venture. They can still
examine the product and see how it works from a usability stand point.
That's still considerably better than having to invent it themselves.
> Still, a protection against "embrace and extend" seems warranted, to
> prevent the public's property from effectively becoming the private
> property of Microsoft or some other predatory company. That's why I
> would favor a more LGPL-like license over BSD or X.
There's little need for this. If the corporation likes the new federally
funded Whiz-Bang software and don't wish to abide by the GPL (it's
hopefully licensed under), they are fully able to write their own
implementation. They just wouldn't be able to use the public code in
doing so. No one is stopping them from using it, but rather from calling
it their own. The LGPL isn't a bad compromise for the situation, but I
obviously still prefer the full GPL for something the general public paid
for.
> That's not the problem so much as the "if you link to GPL code, you must
> release your code as GPL" part. The inability to incorporate GPL code,
> even unmodified, into closed-source products is the bigger issue.
Right, if your product uses a publicly funded creation, it should be
returned to the public. Why should we allow a publicly funded project to
be used to kick-start a proprietary product/creation for a select few?
The fact that corporations are tax payers is rather moot. They have the
same access to the code/creation under the GPL that other tax payers have.
They are not being ignored, nor are they being provided with lesser
rights. Everyone is left on equal footing with an assurance that
published/distributed derivative works will remain available to everyone.
This looks like a win-win to me.
I do respect people that release their creation under a BSD style license.
However, I don't see it as suitable for something funded by a large group
or the general public.
--
Jamin W. Collins
Reply to: