Quote:
Originally Posted by rocket357
Stallman is a pompous, arrogant clown.
Freedom? Who's suing whom? I get that the software license is written in such a manner that it infects other code bases that it is integrated with (unless you hire a lawyer or "compliance officer" to keep you out of court with RMS and henchmen), and I'll agree that any group using the software outside of the licensing requirements is completely #$%-ing mad...but blaming victims of predatory loans for entering into an unfair agreement isn't complete without looking at the company putting forth the predatory loan in the first place.
Lawsuits are not about freedom.
|
The "viral" effect, if that's what you want to call it, existed to some extent with version two of the GPL. I really don't think that GPL v3 is much different than v2, outside of the embedding of blobs. If I remember correctly, the idea that the GPL v3 license precluded the use of the GNU compiler for proprietary code (i.e by forcing generated code to be GPL) was disclaimed by FSF people, and I think it was mostly FUD. I can't remember the link to the disclaimer right now, so I could be wrong. In any case, I'm not a lawyer - so don't take my opinions seriously. :-) I think the switch to GPL v3 was seized upon as a politically convenient and timely point at which to abandon the GPL in general - not really because of GPL v3 specifically, but because of the GPL in general, and all its versions. I'm not a lawyer, so don't give my opinion any cred :-)
I do agree that the idea that one should be seeking legal counsel in order to apply a license is outlandish and unworkable for hobbyist programmers. The GPL has always invoked those general feelings for me - those feelings of uneasiness over how I should interpret the license. It's sooooo much easier to pick the BSD license after you compare it to the verboseness of the GPL.
I never thought the LGPL was very workable. Clients never have the right stuff, and they don't know how to get it, even with help. I think many large app producers who go that route really do not abide by the license, but they just say that they do. Stallman knows this, and it aggravates him. Admittedly, driver producers can benefit from the LGPL, as they can make calls into the kernel and (for the userland counterparts) - the C library, and those things don't change as often. Maybe that's an area where the GPL v3 was seen to be rubbing the wrong way. I suppose I'd have to consult a lawyer to know for sure.
What it amounts to is that if you're going to use GPL'ed code in some way inside or connected to your own code, then release all of your own code in harmony with the GPL. This makes it a lot easier to deal with, even if there are "loopholes" you could otherwise use, and your conscience will be clear. If you use BSD or MIT code, and use BSD or MIT licenses, then you can keep (all or part of) your code secret, or release all of it. So, we really are talking about two separate camps. Pick a camp. That's what FreeBSD and Apple have done. Separate camps aside, IMO there is much FUD going about town, around compiler issues and other things. That FUD turns this whole thing into a religious war. Really, I think the two camps can get along. No reason for war.