GPL considered what? (was: launchd for Linux)

[Eric Dunbar]

On 5/6/05, Michael Shigorin <mike at osdn.org.ua> wrote:
>         Hi!
> Sorry, my EU.02 too.
> 
> On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:39:43PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > The GPL is not a free licence since it places restrictions on
> > > code -- you cannot make improvements to it that you aren't
> > > forced to publish.
> > While that's a popular misconception, it is in fact not true.
> > You cannot [...]
> 
> In fact, you cannot "give absolute freedom" and thus have to
> thade in something -- either developers' freedom or consumer's
> (including all sorts of (re)publishers and developing users) one.
> 
> GPL sacrifices the latter, and I see no reason to do otherwise
> for case when they can be done without compensating the costs in
> any way or providing help in other ways.  As seen with the code
> of SourceForge, even that is fatally liberal when the whole value
> provided by modified code can be put behind the corporate
> firewall -- i.e. when it's a /service/.

Absolute freedom is not possible. You can allow someone to do whatever
they wish with code, or you can place restrictions. Most GPL
restrictions are OK, but I have to say that I find a few quite
disagreeable for a licencing scheme that claims to be "free" (of
course, it is those who shout loudest that define "free" ;-). You
cannot link to proprietary libraries from what I understand, nor can
you redistribute modified binaries without having to disclose all
changes. The second one isn't that problematic, but the first I
disagree with. If a proprietary library/app/whatever provides the best
solution, "free" software should not be prevented from using the best
solution (even if the source code is unavailable), provided that, at
the very least, the binary is guaranteed to be publicly available.

In time my objections to the more rabid forms of free-software
fanaticism will wane because there will be fewer proprietary soltuions
that provide a better solution than "open" solutions. But, in the mean
time I'd like to see open source move as far as possible, as fast as
possible.
> > I used to use Pine myself; it's a nice, easy-to-use, basic
> > mailer, albeit limited compared to more modern options.
> 
> Like mutt ;-)  I've went this path too and it's worth the trouble.

Of course, mutt is a mutt to use -- it don't work worth a damn :-) :-)
:-) (vi sucks as an editor).

Eric.