Re: Problem with InstallShield (Was Re: [Bug 629] Changed - Problemwith InstallShield: ole:CoTreatAsClass(stub), ole:CoGetClassObject)

On Fri, 10 May 2002 15:06, Roland wrote:

> At 03:56 PM 5/9/02 -0500, Sean C. Farley wrote:
> >In none of these, do I have a need to go beyond the BSD or X11 licenses.
> >Reasons to use a GNU license:
> >1) Want others to have to give out their code
> >2) Hamper others from making money on the code
>
> More reasons:
>
> 2) Prevent embrace and extend tactics. Imagine Linux being under X11. I
> wouldn't feel comfortable thinking about the possibility of M$ using this
> tactic. They certainly have the cash to afford making their own fork, think
> about what happened with the Kerberos protocol.

In the case of Kerberos, Microsoft basically changed the protocol.  With
or without code, they could have done it.  Having the code only makes
the extension sooner but does not stop it.

Also, think about the HTTP protocol extensions (i.e., 403.7).  No code
embracing was necessary.  This just recently bit me.  Grrrr.

> 3) Increase the amount of available free software. This is especially
> true in combination with point 1 you mentioned. I think some companies
> will start using/improving xGPL software when the cost of
> reimplementing it is too high.

Is this necessary to having fun developing code?  There is more free
software now than ever before.  Much of this code came from companies
that did not have to open the code:  StarOffice from Sun and a lot of
code from IBM within Apache.  No GPL to make them do it, but they still
did it anyway.

> 4) In the case of bespoken software: If the developer uses a xGPL code
> as basis, changes MUST be returned. If the license was X11 the hiring
> company could demand: Don't release the code back to the public. Ask
> the guys from CodeWeavers about their experiences in this regard. This
> will also increase the amount of free software.

The license is not necessary.  The developer can just state, within the
contract, that all code must be returned to the project.

> 5) In a sense free software is better because the whole world can
> profit.  With proprietary software poor countries/small companies are
> in a technological disadvantage. Free software democratizes
> technology.  Therefore it makes sense to try to enforce as much free
> software as possible. Using the xGPL is a way to accomplish this.

Are not BSD and X11 licenses Free software?

I agree that open source is better for all people, but I disagree that
it should be enforced.  I rather show by example (BSD) than to enforce
(GPL).

With the GPL, I have to concern myself with people using my code in ways
that are not sanctioned by the GPL.  With a more open license, I do not
have to worry; I can just have fun coding.

Sean
--------------
[email protected]