[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GPL or not GPL, that is the question (was: Re: ipchains)



Looks like this thread is never going to end. Does anybody still remember why
it was titled "ipchains"? :)

On Sat, Dec 30, 2000, Omer Zak wrote about "GPL or not GPL, that is the question (was: Re: ipchains)":
> I believe that all the arguments about GPLed software (starting from
> ipchains and then wandered elsewhere) overlooked one important point.
> This point is what originally motivated RMS in his GNU crusade.
> 
> His original point is that users must have the power to modify software
> and tailor it to their specific needs.  This point was driven into home
> when RMS could not modify the driver for a new printer, so that it met his
> special needs, and the printer's manufacturer won't modify the driver in
> his behalf, either.
> 
> Everything else followed from this.  As long as people, who got your
> software, can modify it, the spirit of GPL is preserved.

Sure, getting the source is an important "principle", but ultimatively,
nobody is saying that every binary installation should be accompanied by
the source, but rather that the user can, if she wants, find the source.
Imagine a Linux machine running some inventory/cash-register program in
a store. Even if everything on it is free software, it is likely not to come
preinstalled with sources, because the cashier wouldn't have a clue what
to do with them, and wouldn't want to "modify the printer driver" (but if
they want, they can find the source).

> The example of computer-VCR-appliance is blatant violation of the GPL
> spirit.  For one thing, it does not provide for Israeli customers to
> modify the software to support Hebrew, PAL and the like (assuming that the
> hardware can be programmed to accept either NTSC or PAL).

But the video-recording software and GUI software on that machine isn't GPL!
Everything that is GPL - the kernel, C library, font renderer, are distributed
unchanged (and, if you want, with the source on an accompanying CD). So
how is this a blatant violation of the GPL spirit (unless the GPL spirit is
"everything should be licensed using GPL")? 
How is this different from my example of a PC maker distributing a preinstalled
Linux system with an additional commercial game on it? Or do you consider this
too a violation of the GPL's spirit (or matter)?

If the GPL spirit is "a GPL program should not help in any way to further
the cause of a non-free, commercial, enterprise", then most of what each
of us are doing is wrong: did you typeset a document for work? Thief!
did you use a Linux workstation at work to write commercial software? Let's
lock you up and throw away the key! Did you create commercial software
that "takes advantage" of the Linux operating environment (including everything
from the shell, libraries and X-Windows)? Richard Stallman will personally
hunt you down and force a MS-Windows distribution down your throat. :)

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |        Sunday, Dec 31 2000, 5 Tevet 5761
nyh@math.technion.ac.il             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |A diplomat thinks twice before saying
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |nothing.

=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to linux-il-request@linux.org.il with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail linux-il-request@linux.org.il