Re: GPL and Economics

Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> 
> > > The point is that each transaction on the market limits the possible
> > > future choices of people on the market, so it is not truely free in
> > > the meaning of a normal free market.
> >
> > But that's the point of copyleft!
> 
> Indeed and that is why I don't like it.

Eh?  See the final section of my response, below.

> > By releasing modified code that
> > others have released under the GPL (any copyleft license, as
> > what a lot
> > of people state as being xGPL-specific is just basic
> > copyleft) you have
> > entered into contracts with all of the previous developers of that
> > code.  This is no different from a proprietary vendor who makes use of
> > several other proprietary libraries. If they want to change
> > the license
> > on their end product to something that is against the terms of their
> > contracts to use those libraries, they must contact each
> > library vendor
> > to change the contract.
> 
> If they want to distribute the libraries certainly.
> 
> However the GPL tries to do futher than that and tries
> to claim even applications dynamically linked to the library.
> 
> Normal proprietory vendors normally doesn't care since the
> end user must buy the library anyway in order to use it.

I will agree that the GPL restriction on linking with dynamically linked
libraries is somewhat "viral" (loaded word here) and perhaps
inappropriate.  I have mixed feelings on this and as a result prefer to
release even whole programs under the LGPL (like bochs, which we've
already come up with several uses where large portions can be separated
and used as libraries.)  I personally don't believe the
"work-as-a-whole" language in the LGPL means much, as creating a library
that takes a variety of plugins can be a very useful "work-as-a-whole."

> > Both individual contributors and the proprietary vendor above may
> > relicense/reuse their own work however they want, but that
> > doesn't give
> > them the right to reuse the work of others in violation of
> > the contract
> > terms with which they received rights to distribute that work.
> 
> Naturally. But it is the viral aspect of the GPL I'm against
> not the non-viral part. Normal contract term are usually non-viral
> so no problem there.

Now I'm a little unclear on your views.  Even with a non-viral copyleft
"each transaction on the market limits the possible future choices of
people on the market," so I don't see how you can limit your objections
to the viral parts of the GPL and still have problems with the
limitations that copyleft places on the market that are typical of any
software licensed from a large group of contributors.

Or maybe I misunderstood and you "don't like" copyleft whereas you are
"against" the GPL, which makes sense.

GREG