Re: Does the LGPL encourage sharing of code?

On 05.04.2002, Brett Glass created this extraordinary piece of literature, which I will thankfully quote in the following:
> At 01:09 PM 4/5/2002, Roland wrote:
>  
> >Hello,
> >one of the arguments in favour of the LGPL is that it encourages sharing of code. 
> 
> ...in the same way that holding a gun to your head "encourages" you to
> cooperate with the person holding the gun. It's not cooperation. It's
> coercion -- confiscation of programmers' hard work via a threat of 
> government force.
> 
Government ? Oh no, RMS has become president ;-) You don't seem to understand
that the GPL forces no one to use the code, just ignore all GPL projects out
there and you will be fine. 
> >Consider this quote from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html:
> ><quote>
> >Consider GNU C++.  Why do we have a free C++ compiler?  Only because
> >the GNU GPL said it had to be free.  GNU C++ was developed by an
> >industry consortium, MCC, starting from the GNU C compiler.  MCC
> >normally makes its work as proprietary as can be.  But they made the
> >C++ front end free software, because the GNU GPL said that was the
> >only way they could release it.
> 
> If they'd cared, they would have started from scratch. GCC (especially
> at that time and still today) was not a particularly good compiler.
> 
You're right, GCC sucks, so does Linux. Hmmm, wait, why does anyone use it 
then ? Ah, there's nothing else available ! Hmmm, wait, there is some compiler
my Microsoft, which sucks and there's Borland C++, which also sucks. So, I guess
GCC is not so bad in comparison to these famous commercial compilers.
> >The question is also, how much could would have been shared if the license 
> >was X11?
> 
> Any answer to such a question would be pure speculation. However, it's
> worth noting that TenDRA and pcc were released under BSD/X11-style
> licenses without the GPL's coercive tactics.
> 
> The main effect of the GPL, as applied to GCC, has been to turn it
> into a weapon against commercial compiler vendors. Very few commercial
> C compilers are currently available, even though the quality of the
> code generated by GCC leaves much to be desired. The companies that
> were in the business of making C compilers have shut down or are
> suffering from greatly depressed revenues (which means that they
> likely WILL shut down shortly). The GPL has accomplished its purpose:
> destroying opportunities for programmers.
> 
Yeah, you're right again, it would be much better that there were 1000s of
incompatible and crappy compilers out there. Look at MS Visual C++. This thing
sucks and if there was no GCC, we would only have such stuff. That would be 
great wouldn't it ? Nobody would write free software and we weren't forced to
discuss this license crap. Really, I thought you were a strong Anti-GPL guy, 
but this stuff about GCC proves that you're just a fool. You _*REALLY*_ think
that the computer world would be better off without GCC ? Look at the commercial
crap that is available. It all sucks. If there was something better than GCC, 
ppl would use it, but there isn't. Look at the code generated by Visual C++.
It is much worse than the code created by GCC. Face it, GCC is a good compiler
and it proves that xGPL is the license to go. Without GCC, there weren't as many
ppl who could learn to code without spending several hundreds of dollars for
some crappy proprietary compiler. I have really seen good arguments for X11 and
I can understand that some ppl prefer it, but just stating crap to ensure that
every single point other guys make is void, is just absolute non-sense. Please,
only this one time, Brett, think *before* you write.
> --Brett Glass

-- 
Boris Buegling  <[email protected]>

"Das grosse Problem der Bundestagswahl ist es, aus einer Partei zwei zu
machen, damit es ueberhaupt eine Wahl gibt."

"Sleep less - live longer." - "Ok good, 1 down... Now all I need is beer, video
games and hacking to be linked to living longer and I'm set."