GPL - freedom versus restriction

Daniel Joyce daniel.a.joyce at worldnet.att.net
Sat Nov 10 17:14:38 UTC 2001


>
> If you provide software with a restriction, the restriction
> restricts the actions of the users of the software (i.e., it
> removes a freedom from the consumer).  GPL seems to be trying to
> restrict what restrictions the user may *add* (for a subsequent
> end-user), which can probably be shown to be an internally
> inconsistent restriction (rough sketch: try applying it twice,
> 180 degrees out of phase, to produce a contradiction).  A
> contradiction in this sense simply means that somewhere down the
> road a user is required to (1) do X, and (2) not do X. 

	Uhm, howso. The GPL never gets 'looser' or 'stricter'. It's the same. 
Everyone plays by the same rules, so how can it get inconsistent? The scope 
is never narrowed or broadened. 

	And how would you apply it "out of phase?"
	
	If progA is GPL, and progB is GPL, then progA+B is GPL. 
	If progA is LGPL and progB is LGPL, then progA+B is LGPL
	If ProgA is LGPL, and progB is GPL, then progA+B can not be distributed ( 
LGPL and GPL differ ).
	You can not distributed progA+B until you manage to have either A or B 
relicensed under the GPL or LGPL respectively. This is discussed at length in 
the GPL and LGPL.
	It's the same if ProgA were some propietary license. GPL code can be used 
only in GPL code. So any child package of B (  in this case A+B ) needs to be 
GPL too. So Prog A would need to be relicensed to a 'free' license of some 
kind. BSD or GPL would suffice. 
	If that cannot be done, then you are not allowed to distribute A+B until it 
can be resolved. That clause of the GPL keeps 'tainted' software out. It 
ensures that blending/splicing/moding/splitting/ of all GPL software can 
freely take place.
	Other packages that are looser than the GPL, and make no restrictions about 
subsequent licensing, also can be blended in, since they can simply have the 
GPL slapped onto them, and get tossed in the pool.

	This only comes up in the complex Morass of propietary licensing, where A 
specifies one thing, B specifies another, and C another, and what happens if 
you want to use code from all 3? 

	If all the software is GPL, or other 'free' software with no restrictions on 
relicensing, cross pollination is easy, and simple. 

	GPL when you get down to it, is just a 'play nice clause'.

	It keeps someone from squirreling away code.

 If such
> a contradiction can be shown, it would actually be illegal for
> that individual to own a copy of the software, regardless of
> intent.  I don't think it means that a user is not allowed to
> distribute the software under any circumstances, because that's
> just an ordinary restriction.  If these intuitions are correct,
> it may also mean that GPL is not only one of the farthest
> possible things from freedom, but it might even be possible to
> incorporate (illegal) discriminatory clauses via
> constructive/destructive interference of separately
> non-discriminatory clauses.  Just an idea, in case anyone ever
> needs to tear down the whole concept of GPL licence in court.

	Uhm, the GPL is pretty simple, and I don't understand the hatred for it.

	The only time this has happened when someone tried to add packages to a GPL 
program that had propietary licenses. Then the GPL simple stated "You can 
redistro this" because of the license conflict. But it wasn't the GPL fault, 
it was the fault of the propietary license on the module the git provided.

	"I made this software, and I'm sharing it with you."
	"The only thing I demand is that you share it with others"

	That's the gist of it. I can charge for it, but I have to share the source 
code.

	Has "Sharing" become such a dirty word since the 80s?

>
> Hm.  I never really congealed an analogy with co/contravariant
> types, but I think (and hope) the gist of the argument survived.
	
	Well, accounting it has been applied to THOUSANDS of software packages, and 
no such contradictions have become apparent...

	Also the GPL is quite simple.

	"If you choose to use the GPL:
	If you sell the program, you must give the customer the source code.
	You may not prevent your cstomers from modifying the source code or 
reselling it.
	The source code given to the customers must be under the GPL as well".

	If you can get all the copyright holders of the software to agree, you can 
release different versions under different license. Copyright, and licensing 
are strictly different. There are propietary licensed vers of Alladin 
Ghostscript, and the year old versions are relicensed as GPL. ( Which is 
great, if you want to see how GS rendering works I imagine....)

	Pretty simple rules I think, and I don't understand why everyone wants to 
shoot it down?

	I mean, it's JUST a licensing idea. No different than BSD, etc.

	But when I release software, and I want people to play nice, I'll use the 
GPL. BSD, they could make a propietary version, and keep all the fun to 
themselves. And where is the fun in that.... ;)

	"Yeah man, the GPL Sucks, now where did I put that GCC compiler/Linux/etc..."

	Strikes me as reminescent of the right wing nutters who rant about how the 
US govt is evil, and never does anything good, while using the highway system 
to drive to their militia meetings... ;)

	Or like the kid who hogged all the trucks in the sandbox...

	Daniel
	

	





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list