[GRASS5] why GPL

[strobe anarkhos]

At 10:31 AM +0200 3/27/01, Jan-Oliver Wagner wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 06:08:59PM -0800, strobe anarkhos wrote:
>> Protection isn't the issue, reciprocity is the issue.
>
>protection is an issue.

Not here it isn't.

>
>> >You know the examples of X11 and BSD. Only stronger protection in
>> >licensing made the GNU systems as viable and popular as it is now.
>> >So in short: I doubt that your implications are working as you
>> >propose in the long term.
>>
>> What about X11 and BSD?
>
>Both are licensed weak (X11: MIT License, BSD: BSD License).
>Around X11 several prorietary/non-free software projects have
>been developed. While you may say this is a good thing, I say that
>several interesting improvements to X11 got separated from each other.
>So the X11 server A has some advantages over X11 server B and vice
>versa. This decreased the overall quality and slowed down advances.
>I don't want this to happen to GRASS where the fundamentally broad
>support as it exists for X11 is not existing.

Yea, and look at postscript. It's proprietary and has many different interpreters. Boy did that standard fall apart.

I really don't see how this problem arose out of the license. All you need is a standards board which certifies implementations. To look at it another way, if X11 was GPL I doubt it would have been as widely used. I guess that would have been a good thing in your eyes.

>What about BSD? Good question :-) GNU/Linux is known far better.
>IMO this is because the kernel of GNU/Linux is GPLed.
>It makes the system more attractive to contribute (because
>people just like the idea of freedom).

Yea, but BSD actually is better.

Are you a columnist for C/NET or something?

> > I hardly use any GNU-ware myself. The only one I use is probably gcc.
>
>Funny to see that gcc is GPLed :-)
>Why don't you use a compiler under a weaker license?
>(Answer: because they did not evolve to the same quality).

Actually I've been using Code Warrior for many years and use gcc because that's what Apple uses. Code Warrior produces far better optimized PowerPC code so as soon as Metrowerks (Motorola) releases their Mach-O compiler I may switch back.

I'm not that fond of gdb but that's probably because a good front-end hasn't been written yet. It has basic breakpoints, step in, step over, etc. but assembly-level debugging is weak.

> > Stability isn't the issue. GPL doesn't make code stable. Talk about a red herring.
>
>GPL makes code stable. Of course not via the legal words in it -
>that would be your red herring.
>GPL is a kinf of an attractor. It pulls people together who like
>the idea of freedom (as in free speech). If there are are technically
>equal opportunities for the same type of software, many people
>will contribute to the GPLed one and report bugs, etc.
>Besides, they will get back any benefit anyone contributes
>(not just bug fixes but also add-ons and stuff like that).

But this has nothing to do with the LGPL. GNUStep for example is LGPL and you can't take their code, edit/improve it, then re-license it. You get the same benefits verbatim.

It's still a red herring.

> > like Eric Miller said, protection isn't the issue, reciprocity is the issue.
>
>protection is an issue. people like it.

It's not an issue because the LGPL provides the same protection. The only difference is reciprocity.

>
>> The LGPL license offers the same protection as the GPL.
>> FSF changed the title from 'Library' to 'Lesser' for political reasons, it
>> has nothing to do with the license verbatim.
>
>Simply not true. Please read pre-ambles.

It's the same license. One allows linking by non-GPL software, the other doesn't.

---------------------------------------- 
If you want to unsubscribe from GRASS Development Team mailing list write to:
minordomo at geog.uni-hannover.de with
subject 'unsubscribe grass5'