Re: Economics and the GPL

On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, Tony Lambregts wrote:

> >I'm not distorting anything.  I've already quoted the relevant definitions 
> >from the Oxford English Dictionary to justify this usage of "proprietary".  
> >The "one" in qestion, who benefits from the proprietary nature of the GPL, 
> >is one community (the GPL community), rather than one organization or one 
> >individual.  There's absolutely nothing distorted about the meanings of the 
> >words here -- it's just in conflict with the connotations Stallman has had 
> >for "free" and "proprietary", so of course his supporters don't want to 
> >hear the truth, that the GPL is just as proprietary as the enemy is...
>
> Interesting that you call everyone an exclusive group. Commercial 
> resellers including microsoft are free to use GPL software. GPL is non 
> exclusive and this is a total distortion of the definition of the word 
> "Proprietory". What makes me angry about this is that it is an abuse of 
> well recognized defiinintions.  If you want to persist in saying this 
> then it becomes trolling.... Knock it off.

Interesting that you call the GPL community "everyone" when that's clearly 
not true.  If it were truly "everyone", it would mean the GPL would have to 
be equivalent to the BSD license.  Surely that's not your contention?

It's bizarre that you would argue that the GPL is "non-exclusive" and that 
"everyone" can use it, when it's blindingly obvious that the entire PURPOSE 
of the GPL is to exclude proprietary, closed-source developers from being 
able to enjoy its benefits!  It's leverage to try to get them to release 
their code instead of hoarding it.  If you can't see this, then exactly 
what did you think the GPL exists for?

I'm sorry if you don't like hearing the truth, but the truth is that the 
GPL is proprietary in nature, and it NEEDS to be to do what it does.

Deven