Re: Economics and the GPL

Deven T. Corzine wrote:

>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
>
>
>  
>
But anybody and any company can use it. If you ignore this fact then you 
miss the point. Microsoft can and does use GPL code.  Anybody means 
anybody and the fact that they have to go by the same rules as everybody 
else does  not make it proprietary.  If you go with the argument that 
having an owner makes it proprietory then BSD is just as proprietary as 
GPL.  If you go with the argument that it is the exclusiveness then it 
can't be proprietary.

Anyway I am not the only one that decides what the definition for 
proprietary software is, feel free to take it up with someone else. 
(Even Stallman if you want). I get the idea about were you stand on this 
issue and saying that the GPL is proprietory goes against the commonly 
held definition.  So good luck with the campaign to fix this.


Tony Lambregts

Tony Lambregts