Re: Economics and the GPL

Deven T. Corzine wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Tony Lambregts wrote:
>
>  
>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>Just because there's an inherent dichotomy where one can participate in the 
>GPL community and simultaneously stand apart from it, doesn't negate the 
>fact that there is a distinction here.  Microsoft can use GPL code and 
>benefit from it in one context (utilizing the free aspects) while at the 
>same time being restrained (by the proprietary aspect) from benefitting 
>from the GPL in another context.  This is a dichotomy, but not inherently 
>inconsistent.
>
>There is exclusiveness involved with the GPL's restrictions on distributing 
>modified code.  That doesn't go away just because the same person or same 
>organization can benefit from other aspects of the GPL in other contexts.
>
>And yes, strictly speaking, BSD code is also proprietary -- it is under 
>copyright and has owners.  However, having freely given away most of the 
>benefits of the code, BSD code is LESS proprietary than GPL code.  (While 
>GPL code is, in turn, less proprietary than most closed commercial code.)
>
>  
>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>The "commonly held definition" within the free software community is 
>Stallman's distorted definition.  I'll stick with the English language in 
>this case instead of trying to redefine it for ideological reasons.
>
>That doesn't mean I'm going to go on a crusade to convince Stallman of the 
>error of his ways, but neither will I allow him to dictate my terminology.
>
>Deven
>
>
>  
>
OK your purpose for this is what? proprietary is just a word that has an 
accepted meaning. At this point it obvious that proprietary has no 
relevence when discussing with you the differences between X (what do 
want us to call  commercial products of a closed sourse nature that are 
not GPL licenced?) and Y (GPL licensed software). Are you saying that 
they are the same? That does not seem to be your point. That they both 
use the same method to protect there software was never been a point of 
debate.  Is it that you want to be able to say that the pot is calling 
the kettle black? I think this is your point is it not? OK fine. Pots 
are not kettles though, are they?


Tony Lambregts