Eric S. Raymond on GPL and BSD licenses. & Microsoft coming to Linux

[Mike Parker]

Yigal Chripun wrote:
> On 30/03/2009 04:42, Mike Parker wrote:
>>
>> No, it gives no freedom to developers at all. Using any GPL code in your
>> project /forces/ you to open your source. It takes the decision of
>> whether to open or not out of your hands and puts it in the hands of
>> whomever created the GPLed product you use. That's why you won't find
>> bindings for any GPL libraries in Derelict, because then Derelict and
>> any project that uses it would have to be GPL. You call that freedom?
>>
> 
> all I can say is: huh?
> Nobody forces you to use GPL code if you don't like it. Sorry to say 
> that, but the above is bullshit.
> GPL *is a* license. if I write code and license it with my preferred 
> license, no matter if it's GPL or NDAed proprietary license, if you want 
> to use *my* code, you need to abide by *my* rules. I am a developer, I 
> write code, *I* decide under what terms can you use it. that's as simple 
> as that. don't like my terms? go write your own code or find someone 
> else that will offer you terms closer to what you want.

So, how is what I said bullshit? Where did I say anyone was forcing 
people to use the GPL? You are saying here the same thing I did. /If/ I 
use GPL code in my project, the terms of the license require that I GPL 
everything that touches it. At that point, the developer of the GPLed 
code is dictating that my project be open, not me. That's why the GPL is 
not business-friendly, which is the point of what ESR was saying.

> 
> if I use some proprietary library in my project which I want to open 
> source but can't because of that library's license, should I claim that 
> that library authors are forcing me to have a proprietary license? that 
> ridicules, I made the choice to use that library therefore I must abide 
> by the conditions of that library. If I don't like it, I can always 
> switch a vendor or implement my own.

Sure, choosing to use the GPL is the same as choosing to open your 
source. Choosing to use any license, including your hypothetical 
proprietary license, is a conscious choice to abide by its terms. But 
it's still the license dictating the future of my software, not me. The 
key word here being 'abide'. By using BSD/MIT/ZLib-licensed libraries, 
the choice is entirely mine. These licenses do not dictate decisions 
about my software. I can open my source today and close it tomorrow 
without changing a thing. If I were using a GPL library in my app, I'd 
have to find, or create, a replacement before I could make the change to 
closed source. I would be restricted in the types of libraries I could 
use. If someone came along tomorrow with this great library that would 
enhance my product greatly, I would be unable to use it if it were not 
GPL compatible.

That is not freedom, is not business-friendly, nor, IMO, very sensible. 
Freedom means I would be able to continue to develop, maintain, and make 
decisions about my software on my terms. The GPL does not allow that. 
Neither does your hypothetical proprietary license, which I would avoid 
like the plague.

> 
>> I think the GPL is a great choice for executables, particularly those
>> that were formerly closed. For example, id software uses the GPL when
>> opening their older games. For libraries, though, it severely limits the
>> user base. I would never release a library under the GPL, because I
>> don't want to restrict anyone in using it. As a library developer, I
>> don't care what the end product is, or who the end users are. All I care
>> about are those using my product. They are the ones I want to whom I
>> want to give the freedom of choice.
> 
> nothing prevents you from using free software libraries with your closed 
> source project, that's why we have the LGPL.
> again, no one is forcing you as a library writer to use the GPL, use 
> whatever license you want. If you really want you can even send a 100$ 
> bill personally by snail-mail with your picture to anyone that downloads 
> your code, if you so wish.

Yes, I can and do use the licenses I prefer. I'm not debating that no 
one has freedom in choosing a license. Neither was ESR.