Wine license change
rmf at lookhere.com
Fri Feb 8 03:01:38 CST 2002
Marcus Meissner <marcus at jet.franken.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 05:45:36PM -0500, Roger Fujii wrote:
> > If you are using marketing speak for "contribute". GPL requires 1)
> > for you to show your work 2) You effectively license your software to
> > the FSF. It doesn't say it has to be in any useful form to be worked
> > back into the originating project (if any).
> License is not equal Copyright.
> You don't automatically sign away your Copyright when switching to the GPL.
??? but I didn't mention copyright. I used the word "license" for this
very reason. The copyright holder can later change the licensing policies
(though the FSF says this is "ethically tainted"). But there still can
be a *GPLed copy after the change....
> > Freedom means allowing people to do things, even things that you don't
> > agree with. BSD = Free. GPL is not. Call a spade a spade....
> When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom of use,
> not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that
> you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge
> for this service if you wish); that you receive source code or can get
> it if you want it; that you can change the software and use pieces of
> it in new free programs; and that you are informed that you can do
> these things.
I didn't mention cost for the same reason. It seems like a trivial
academic exercise to show that something that has LESS restrictions is
more "free" than something with more. Hence it is riduculous to say
GPL is more "free" than X11/BSD (which is why I wrote that to begin with).
Just because something claims it's 'free' doesn't mean it is, just
as the "Democractic People's Republic or Korea" isn't democratic by
most people's definition of democracy. GPLed programs are certainly
infinitely more "free" than propriatary ones, but then, propriatory
programs don't try to claim that they're "free" either.
> The problem is not other people doing things with my stuff, the problem
> is restricting ME as a developer.
but that is PRECISELY the issue here, unless you consider someone not
contributing is a restriction on a developer. The *GPL clearly
restricts how something can be distributed:
"rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution
of derivative or collective works based on the Program"
The topic was opened again because there are concerns about how other
people are using the source code. Yes, this is a problem, but the
tendency is for *GPL advocates to claim that there will be no negative
impact which is not the case.
More information about the wine-devel