Hi Robert and all!

(AsbestShield new) wear

"Jarvis, Robert P. (Contingent)" <Jarvisb at timken.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ed Heil [mailto:uncorrected at yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 6:05 AM
> > 
> > I understand that one of the big behind-the-scenes projects that the
> > FSF and their lawyers are working on for future versions of the GPL is
> > a better and more general set of definitions for the "linking" issue.
> > They understand that the license is really written with C in mind and
> > gets less and less comprehensible as your programming model departs
> > from a Unix/C like programming model, but it's not a problem that has
> > an obvious and easy solution.
> 
> It seems to me that the GPL is roughly equivalent to the old Soviet Union
> ("Anything not forbidden is mandatory"), while the MIT license is more like
> the U.S. ("Do what you want, but don't blame us if you get hurt").  SqueakL
> reminds me a bit of socialism ("We're from the government and we're here to
> help you"), while most commercial licenses are rather dictatorial ("We are
> in control!  You have no rights!").  Just an observation...

I do understand your observation but honestly - all these comparisons
between FSF/GNU/Richard Stallman and Communism/Soviet Union are:

1. Quite boring because we have heard them oh so many times...
2. Often rather unenlightened (not always, but often)
3. Often pure propaganda (see Microsoft trying to pull the EXACT same
stunt)
4. IMHO just totally wrong

The GPL is engineered on purpose to foster free software in favour of
"closed proprietary software" (pick your own words if those sound
wrong). SqueakL and MIT are not.

I have a question here: What do you dislike about the GPL? (assuming
that you do dislike the system of old Soviet Union)

Is it the fact that you can't take such code and do what YOU want with
it despite what the copyright holder wants? The copyright holder said,
by choosing GPL, that he/she doesn't want it to be used in closed
proprietary software (distributed that is, inhouse is ok). He she in
fact wants to support free software instead by taking this stand. What
is so wrong with that?

And lastly, there is truly no flame intended with this posting - these
things just tend to awaken the "ranter" in me... ;-) This thread is of
course rather "impopular" so reply in private if needed! Or just go
ahead and post - what the heck, it is better than endless discussions
about Kant, right? :-) :-)

regards, Göran