| Weblog: | Creativity, Flow, and Joy in Programming | |
| Subject: | I love to program, too. But... | |
| Date: | 2002-08-05 05:44:58 | |
| From: | chexsum | |
|
Response to: I love to program, too. But...
|
||
|
The correct world is "commercial," not proprietary.
|
||
Showing messages 1 through 6 of 6.
-
I love to program, too. But...
2002-08-05 12:07:58 brettglass [Reply | View]
-
I love to program, too. But...
2002-08-22 07:54:49 cortlandt [Reply | View]
Thank You Brett,
I don't know what to believe yet, but I think you have made some good points here and I sympathise with the effects to you personally.
What little I have done I've given to the public free for whatever use is desired and if this article's survey is accurate, that's the way it should be.
Chexsum. Given your motivations, do you see any reason not to use the BSD license instead of GPL? -
I love to program, too. But...
2002-09-02 05:14:25 chexsum [Reply | View]
I don't know what to believe yet, but I think you have made some good points here and I sympathise with the effects to you personally.
"For every action there is an equal and opposing reaction." -- author unknown.
Its sad that people are hurt by natural forces. =\ -
I love to program, too. But...
2002-09-02 04:35:43 chexsum [Reply | View]
Given your motivations, do you see any reason not to use the BSD license instead of GPL?
Yes.
Firstly, I do not program much anymore and do not program many tools that satisfies other peoples needs or which dont already have a tool that does the job. If I was to release an original or better method of performing a task as a program I have more motivation to do it if the methods or outcome could be exploited as freely as possible (without it being exploited in a proprietary way).
Secondly, I believe it is a requirement that a programs source code be released in the definition described at www.opensource.com if the software industry (or an institution that relies on that software) is to be benefitted by a method that a program performs or by the programs output when the intent of producing the method is to benefit the software industry (or an institution which relies on that software).
In my youth I would give code away (it was not hard to commit to this when you programmed in C=64 machine code) without caring about copyrights, licenses or monetary returns. Others put a notice asking for a donation of $1 or something similar and some people copyrighted their code and some people also asked for money only when their creation was commercialized. I enjoyed using the public domain software and contributed back any improvement and useful code which I created.
The BSD License is OK but it isnt my first choice in licenses to use to protect my motivation to program. I do use FreeBSD and I use FreeBSD without using its ports system as the BSD system works well. If I was to write a free tool for BSD to replace a GNU tool which BSD did not have I would license it under the BSD License as it would possibly be beneficial to BSD (the BSD License isnt too intrusive to my well being). If I was to enhance a BSD tool I could not think about not licensing it under the terms of the BSD license.
All licenses are evil to someone who codes for fun but the GNU GPL protects ones freedom and motivation to program (and other peoples involvement in this) more than all other licenses which are known by me. I do like the Artistic, GPL, LGPL and BSD licenses more than any other software license but the choice of which one to use depends on the function of the software.
PS. It is true that the GNU GPL is harsh in todays business world but it protects the software industries ecology. If I was to choose ONE license for all facets of software which need protection from demotivational exploitation I would choose a GNU license.
NB. I am not a lawyer, programmer, businessman, professional or tradesman. I enjoy all facets of computing as computing is a hobby which I pursue. GNU/Linux is a great system and I love participating in the community that the GNU GPL helped to evolve and hope an industry continues to evolve with it.
*one hour of editing for this one post - sheesh*
| Showing messages 1 through 6 of 6. |
> You are telling me what I am thinking?
No, I'm telling you that you're misusing
terminology in a way that's intended to confuse
and mislead.... Just as the FSF does in its
propaganda. If you're smart, you won't be fooled
by that propaganda.
> I know the difference between Commercial and
> Proprietory and I only dislike Proprietory
> programs.
If that were true, then you would not support
the GPL. The purpose of the GPL is to destroy
vendors and authors of *commercial* software.
> You claim the GNU Operating System cannot exist
No, I did not claim that. However, I do state
that the GPL is unconscionable (and likely
unenforceable) and that such code should be
licensed under a truly free license -- not one
which makes the code very un-free as the GPL
does. (I note that you use the term "Free
Software", with initial caps, indicating that
you may have swallowed the FSF's propaganda hook,
line and sinker. I hope that this is not the case.
> A lot of your comments are pure propaganda
Not so at all. They're supported, 100%, by fact,
and their purpose is to expose the FSF's
misleading and deceptive propaganda.
> and your views are tainted by money from
> what I have read.
I see. You claim that you work as a mechanic.
Does that mean that if you believe that you
should be paid for your work your views are
"tainted by money?"
> Insert coin to play again.
No thanks. You sound too much like a broken
record -- parroting the FSF's "party line" --
already.
--Brett Glass