BSD, Gav, LGPL, Jeremy, and business

[Patrik Stridvall]

> At 03:50 AM 2/16/2002, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> 
> >Note that when Wine fully works (close to 100% of all Windows
> >applications run) it will not matter what license we have,
> >there will be no money in anything except support anyway
> >and the LGPL will not hurt that.
> 
> WINE is not likely to work more than 90% ever, due to
> the facts that Windows is a moving target

True, but useful application have little reason to use new
Windows API unless it gives them something substantial so
I don't imagine this will be a large problem once we
are close to completion. 

As the Windows application market slow moves to Linux
with the help of Wine, the Windows application writers
are likely to avoid using new Windows API because
of portabillity reasons.

> and that
> Microsoft is likely to patent defensively.

That is an orthogonal problem to licenses.

Of course with the LGPL various companies can't
even make a deal with Microsoft, but then
Microsoft are not likely to make any deals
anyway.
 
> >It is the way there that worries me. Note that
> >we can always choose LGPL later, but after we
> >have choosen it we can't go back.
> 
> This is a concern.

Indeed.
 
> >> Their place, and purpose, has been stated by Stallman.
> >> (Not in the licenses themselves, which are designed
> >> to be deceptive, but in Stallman's words in his more
> >> candid moments.) It is to turn publicly available
> >> software into a weapon in his lifelong, personal
> >> vendetta. Again, he has stated this explicitly
> >> himself, and it is also well documented by third parties
> >> such as Levy.
> >
> >Please, now you are fear mongering again.
> 
> No, I am stating historical fact.

A tool is a tool. As every tool it can be use for good or evil.
The purpose of the creator is irrelevant in the real world.

Only in fairy tales like the Lord of the Rings can tools
be inherently evil. Like the One Ring that answers to
his master Sauron alone and corrupts everybody else
to evil.

Therefore I have a half serious question to you:
Do you believe that the GPL is like the One Ring that
answers to his master Stallman alone, and corrupt
everybody else to evil?

"One License to rule them all, One License to find them. 
 One License to bring them all and in darkness bind them"

You don't seriously believe this do you?

> >I care not whether I support Stallman or not.
> >I care ONLY about what is good for Wine.
> 
> Ethics, consumer choice, and the future of programming
> as a profession all matter as well. It is not ethical
> to focus only on the interests of one project.

Ah, perhaps I shouldn't have formulated myself better.

What I meant was that just because somebody is "evil"
supporting _some_ of the things they support doesn't
make you "evil" or unethical.

Hitler supported building new autobahns (motor ways).
I support build new autobahns (motor ways).

However this doesn't make me "evil".
 
> >The GPL/LGPL works in ways that are almost the dual to fair use.
> >Very simplified: It uses copyright to extend fair use.
> 
> The opposite is true. It attempts to deny fair use by programmers.

No license can deny fair use. I think even in people in the
LGPL camp agrees with me in this.

> And GPL V3 will attempt to deny fair use by ASPs.

I'm not sure that "fair use" is the correct term.

First of all I personally make a difference between
non-infringing use and fair use. At lot of people
call both things fair use.

What they are trying to do is to make some use that
is tradionally considered non-infringing use
to be infriging use. 

I don't think they will have much luck though,
they have already tried to stretch the boundaries
of copyright law with the GPL, so I predict that they
will fail, it is not no much a question on how they
formulate the license, it is more question on where the
boundaries of copyright really is.