Re: GPL vs. sweatshops (was Re: Bias)

Tony Lambregts wrote:
> Roger Fujii wrote:
> 
> GPL is accused of being "viral" because the designers of it did not want
> GPL'd code used in proprietory products period. 

If you believe this, you really don't understand the license.
It is called viral (even by proponents of GPL) because it tries to apply to
things that don't use GPLed source.  See:
   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MoneyGuzzlerInc
(notice the bias in the anchor name)
   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WritingFSWithNFLibs

The FSF calls the viralness the strength of the copyleft. 

So, if I write App A, that calls GPL library B, and non-GPL compatible library C, 
I cannot distribute app A even if app A is GPLed, because it calls library C
(without an exemption) - at least not as a binary.  I doubt that this would
actually hold up in court (and even FSF carefully does not outright say that
this is a violation of GPL).  Nevertheless, they don't stop letting people think
it is a violation.  

> This aspect of the GPL was designed as a posion pill (as a deterent) 
> and it does the job it was meant to do.  

there are many other licenses that do that too without being viral.

> This license has the most protection for the community of
> volunteers. Since the All source code is always available any company
> using GPL has to live off one or all of the following: support, service,
> packaging or some other form of value added service like consulting.

assuming that you there is a sufficent market for support, service, packaging
for such a product.  This is not true for a majority of the GPLed programs out
there.

> Mozilla uses MPL and while there was some inital complaints about it not
> being GPL it seems that things are working out ok for both netscape and
> the open source community around Mozilla. While it is probably too soon
> to say how things will work out for Star/Open Office they too have a
> similar license.

There is no reason to believe any of these projects are in trouble in the
near term.  

> Linux has the support of many companys including IBM.
> Each of these company's have found a business reason for supporting
> these projects and the open source communities seem to be satisfied with
> them .  These are win-win situations because both sides feel they are
> getting what they want.  Even in the case of Apache it worked because
> both sides are ok with the situation.

Do not try to _EQUATE_ the GPL with "Open Source".  Your arguements are for
"Open Source".  They do not necessarily apply to GPL.  IBM contributes
pending on the circumstance - xerces is under apache, their linux work
is GPL.  Jikes is under the IBM Public license.  
 
> As far as I am concerned Wine could have chosen MPL/SISSL/LGLP/WineOrg
> and I would have been OK with the result.

I argued for the same.  That would have been this entire discussion FAR less
contentious and would have been more beneficial to the community.  But as it
seems that it was at least partially ideology driven (ie - the goal was not
to insert a copyleft, but rather push *GPL), we're where we are now.

-r