On Saturday 10 November 2001 12:51 pm, you wrote:
> > 	Uhm, the GPL is pretty simple, and I don't understand the hatred for it.
>
> If this is a sincere request, then consider these three lines from your
>
> post:

>
> Notice that even different varieties of GNU code ofen cannot work
> together.  Imagine how bad it is trying to combine a GNU license with a
> *non* GNU license!  People often try to combine software from different
> sources, and GNU doesn't make this especially easy.

	Trying mixing code from propietary licenses? It's impossible. There is no 
problem with mixing code from programs licensed with the GPL, they are 
intermixable within their group.

	

>
> > 	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?
>
> In fact, the main GNU go out of their way to make mixing difficult: they
> treat combination the same way as modification.  LGPL is better, but its
> notion of combination seems to be extremely narrow.

	Uhm, whahuh?

	If I add features from ProgA to ProgB, then ProgB HAS changed. It has been 
modified. If I diff ProgBv1 and ProgBv2, I see mods. It has been modified. 
So, mixing is modification. 
	I'm not arguing about Linking, or Libraries, or other stuff like that. I 
agree that as it stands, it's difficult to apply the GPL to code written in 
most late binding languages. 

>
> > 	GPL when you get down to it, is just a 'play nice clause'.
>
> Then, to really rub it in, people will say something like this.  Grr,
> beating people down and then telling them it's for their own good!
>

	Hey, I'm not saying it's perfect or should be used in all cases.

	But the simple idea that people can't reuse GPL code without keeping the 
results under the same protections/restrictions, is good in certain 
situations.

	If I write a package, and I want to ensure that all changes are publically 
available and usable, by me or others, the GPL is the way to go.

	No other license provides that. 

	Plus, it also ensures the code is always out there. If company B goes belly 
up, changes can continue.

	if the changes made by company were private, and could remain so ( as the 
BSD license allows ) then important work may be lost as companies die. How 
many of us are still begging to see what that idealab spinoff did with 
Squeak? Their webbox is dead, it's never going anywhere, but the Source is 
setting on some musty tape archive somewhere. 

	We all know they made massive improvements to the UI, and lord knows Squeak 
could use the help. But we'll never see it. They're probably hoping someone 
will pay $250,000 for the source code, or something. Or they just don't care.

	At least when the company dies, the users can ban together with their source 
code, and at least support their own uses, since what they got source wise is 
the system they are running. Since all changes are public. That's the main 
benefit of the GPL. It's damn hard for code to die, since someone, out there, 
likely has it on CD, etc.

>
> -Lex

-Daniel

I just don't think the restrictions the GPL makes are as onereous as everyone 
seems to think..

If ya don't like the game, use different rules. But don't complain when 
people hog all the game pieces for themselves... <:)