Showing messages 1 through 3 of 3.

• Alas, Bruce is hypocritical.
  2002-09-29 09:45:08  Tim O'Reilly | [Reply | View]
  
  
  I don't see any hypocrisy. I agree with the other complainants that you've introduced a red herring here, Brett. Just because the GPL isn't as free as the BSD or Apache style licenses, or the Artistic license, doesn't mean that it's wrong. In fact, I was heartened to see Bruce saying that sincere choice means that any license--including proprietary licenses--can be OK.
  

  
  The only coercion I'm concerned about is external to licensing terms. My objection to Microsoft's licenses has always been the fact that, as a monopoly, certain terms that might be acceptable in a small company's license (which the customer can walk away from) become coercive when the licensor has such market power that they can dictate terms. Add that to Microsoft's past abuses of power, and you have a problem.
  

  
  The GPL might be considered a coercive license if the FSF had such market power that people were forced to accept it. But if it's freely accepted as a condition of use of the licensed software, it's not a problem. No one has a right to use the software except on the terms under which it is provided.

• There <b>is</b> a coercive element in the GPL...
  2002-09-28 07:39:34  John W. Adams | [Reply | View]
  
  
  ...one which coerces the developer, should that developer decide to accept the licence and use the work thereby licenced, to make work available to others.
  
  The coercive element in many proprietary licences coerces the developer, should that developer decide to accept the licence and use the work thereby licenced, not to make work available to others.
  
  One coercion extends the choices available to others, the other restricts those choices.
  
  I prefer a world without such coercion--Artistic License, anyone? Better yet, a license that somehow reframes the debate--but absent that world, the GPL is a reasonable licence.

• Bruce is not hypocritical and GPL is a license like the prorprietary ones
  2002-09-28 03:03:43  GerardM [Reply | View]
  
  
  This is old hat. GPL is like a proprietary license; you are not allowed to use it. So whining that you can not pick a GPL piece of code and run with it. It is similar to proprietary code. Use Microsoft's code and tweek it a bit, sell it and you will find lawyers on your way. If that is a"law"ed that I do not see why it is not a"law"ed when it is GPL code.