On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Josh Paetzel wrote: > On Sunday 21 October 2007 18:07:24 Mike Miller wrote: > >> >>> It's interesting that for ~15 years the FSF has been telling me >>> what 'Free' is, and their definition has essentially been GPL >>> compatable. Specifically the GPLv2...many licenses have come and >>> gone in those years, only those which have been GPLv2 compatable >>> have been declared free by the FSF....until now. The FSF has >>> recently released the GPLv3 which is *not* GPLv2 compatable, but >>> somehow it is the new definition of free....it also carries with >>> it more restrictions, which melts my brain. I am more free >>> because of more restrictions. >> >> I think the new changes are about software patents, aren't they? >> And software patents seem to be a recent legal innovation and a >> serious threat. As to their definition of free software, it is >> here: >> >> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html >> >> Regarding compatibility of GPLv3 with GPLv2, see here: >> >> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility >> >> The reasons for changes were explained by Stallman here: >> >> http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms_gplv3_launch_transcript >> > > You ignore my point, that the FSF wishes to position itself as the sole > determinant of freedom. They came up with a term, "free software," and they defined that term. I don't see anything wrong with that. They have since been promoting the use of the term and the relevant concepts. As you pointed out, they have been doing quite well for themselves and for us. Now that I know what your point is, I think it is not correct and I don't know what the basis is for your claim, or why you put your idea in those terms. >>> The FSF would also have you believe that commercial software is bad or >>> wrong somehow....another position I really have a hard time with. >> >> You can now have an easy time again because you were wrong all along. >> Their opposition is to proprietary licenses not to commercial >> applications. > > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-kth.htm > > If your read something like that, you don't get the impression he's > talking about licenses at all, mainly because he only uses the word > license once, in an analogy...but he touts the downfalls and evils of > commercial software quite a bit... That page doesn't exist without an html extension (.htm doesn't work). Well, I guess that explains how you got the wrong idea. He sometimes uses the word "commercial" in that article in reference to software that is both commercial and proprietary. He also complains that big money from commercial software companies destroyed his beloved MIT AI lab and his hacker culture. Maybe you should read this: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html >>> I've been using open source solutions both professionally and >>> recreationally for well over 15 years now. 99.9% of the commercial >>> code I write at work goes out the door with a BSD license on it, and >>> the people buying it gladly pay 6 figures for our product. (In case >>> you are wondering the remaining .1% goes out GPL'd because of virus >>> infestations, but we're working on eliminating that little pest) >> >> I don't know what you mean by "virus infestations" unless you mean that >> you were incorporating GPL code into your code. It is unfortunate that >> you are using the BSD license. Do your employers know that any >> competitor can take your code, improve it and use it in a competing >> product and they don't have to share their code with you? But if your >> employer were using GPL instead, the competitor would have to share >> back with your company. So why is BSD better for you than GPL? Seems >> like BSD was a bad choice. > > > Not at all, competitors are about 2 years behind us right now. Our code > is for all practical purposes worthless to them. OK, I agree that worthless code should be distributed under the BSDL or any other license at all -- who cares? > You can download everything we do from publically available svn, even > though thanks to the BSDL we are under no compulsion to provide that, > and build our product on your own, get it running, and save yourself the > $500,000 site installation fee that we charge. But to date, in over 4 > years of operation, no one has done so. No one wants to save $500,000? Maybe you aren't providing adequate installation instructions! You should know that you are under no obligation under the GPL to provide publically available svn or web-based distribution. You can send it by mail and charge S/H. > One of Stallman's points against commercial software is that it forces > programmers to reinvent the wheel, but the GPL is really no different in > that regard. I have been forced time and time again to reimpliment > GPL'd software simply because it's license is not usable to me in the > commercial environment that I am in. Why would I want you to be able to use my code? It sounds like you don't produce any code that anyone can use (that's what you've said). The fact that you can't use GPL doesn't matter to me if you also can't give anything of value back to a GPL project. > I really do think you've missed out on how badly Stallman wants > commercial software in any form to go away, and for a return to the > heady days of his youth when business didn't care about software and it > was all just fun and games. His license reflects that attitude > perfectly. Is that a bad thing? I don't htink he wants commercial software to go away though. He sells his software: https://agia.fsf.org/order/ Also, I've bought hundreds of dollars worth of books from him. Mike