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

Roger Fujii wrote:

>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.  
>  
>
FSF has it own agenda true, and I don't agree with everything they say. 
 They are on the extream end of the spectrum though. I also doubt it 
would hold up in court

>  
>
>>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.
>
Ok tell me about other licenses that have a "posion pill" aspect about 
them. <grin>

>
>  
>
>>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.
>
Then it up to the community of volunteers to provide support and 
service. If there is not enough users and volunteers then the project 
dries up

>
>  
>
>>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.  
>
I am not equating GPL with "Open source". I don't know how I gave you 
that impression. I was saying the same thing as you.  We seem to be in 
agreement here.  Are you OK with that?

> 
>  
>
>>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.
>
Certainly this last round of debate has devoved into mostly OT 
disscussions about ideology. I think that the first round had enough 
ideolgical ranting going on for my taste.  Perhaps more people should 
have pushed for one of the other copylefts. If you recall I tried to 
advocate for wine org (ineptly perhaps) and I like the idea of a time 
dependent copyleft. However, LGPL is what was the course that was chosen 
and I think that it is acceptable.  


I think everyone has their own set of ideologies that  influence what 
they do and what they are OK with.  So while I agree with you that 
ideology is/was a factor, in that all decisions are at least partialy 
driven by ideology.  I fail to see how you arrive at the conclution that 
the ideology was to push *GPL rather than copyleft.


Tony Lambregts