[plug] [article] Open Code Market (OCM)

[James Devenish]

In message <20031114055835.GA3126 at erdos.home>
on Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 01:58:35PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 01:29:24PM +0800, James Devenish wrote:
> | In message <20031114043558.GC724 at erdos.home>
> | on Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 12:35:58PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> [...]
> | > You are not free to restrict the rights of others (on GPL'ed code).
> 
> Er, no I didn't! ;-)  That was someone else.

Hehe, you missed the bit that said this:
    In message <Pine.LNX.4.33L2.0311141046350.4824-100000 at donau>
    on Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 11:16:53AM +0800, Mike Holland wrote:

> | ?!?!? The GPL *does* restrict the rights of you to distribute your own
> | work,
> 
> !?!?! No it doesn't.  You can distribute your own work however you
> bloody well want to, and that GPL can't influence that one whit ---
> unless your work is a derivative of GPL-licensed[1] software,

Obviously.

> in which case you must follow the GPL as it is the only licence you
> have to distributed modified versions of said software.

Yep.

> | That is how the GPL achieves its goals! By imposing these limits
> | on your rights, the openness of your own work (when distributed) is
> | ensured.
> 
> Except that it doesn't limit the rights of authors of GPL'ed works,

Yes it does: it limits copyright rights, like all the free software
licenses. But what I really meant was that it limits what you are
allowed to do with your own work when that work is a derivative of
GPL-licensed software or a combined work (or is there some other reason
that the LGPL exists?). This is something that you would particularly
notice if you did not normally distribute your own work under the GPL.

> If you /do/ want to have these rights, you're welcome to /not/ license
> your code under the GPL.

No you're not: the GPL restricts the licensing of your code (if you wish
to distribute your derivative or library-dependent works, that is).

> Note too that other licences (e.g. the BSD licence or MIT X licence)
> also take away these rights and /don't/ ensure the openness of your work
> and everything based on it.

True; they are geared for freedom of open software rather than openness
of open software.

> | This would probably be fine if all computer programmes were likewise
> | licensed, and if there were no benefits to proprietary interest. I
> | guess this the hope.
> 
> That is certainly RMS's goal!

> Hehehe.  Perhaps what is even more tragic is that I'm subscribed (and
> occasionally post) to both of those mailing lists... :-P

Same, but I'll be damned if I can keep up with them. I read them by
occasionally invoking `tail` on the mbox files ;-)

> [1] Attention pedants:
You called?
> Am I correct in assuming "licence" is the noun and "license" is the
> verb?
Yes.
> Too bloody lazy to check a dictionary (-:
Okay. Though they have them online these days ;-P `apt-get install dict`
and all -- though I'm not sure about prevelance of dict-accessible
Australian dictionaries ;-)


_______________________________________________
plug mailing list
plug at plug.linux.org.au
http://mail.plug.linux.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plug