[olug] U.K. Urged to hold back on open source

[Sam Tetherow]

William E. Kempf wrote:
> Sam Tetherow said:
> 
>>William E. Kempf wrote:
>>
>>>Again, before this thread spins too far out of control you should keep
>>>in mind that I'm not against open source or free software.  I just
>>>dislike the GPL, and understand that corporations are so wary of it
>>>that many won't let you touch it, even when there should be no risk.
>>>
>>
>>And I am not a against proprietary software or other licenses, however
>>perpetuating the fear and uncertianty of the GPL does little to help the
>> endorsement of free software in general especially considering how much
>> open source software is published under the GPL.
> 
> 
> The restrictions of the GPL are not FUD.  They're legally binding, and
> have serious implications that many don't understand (and you've proven
> that in this discussion).

No I haven't, I have said nothing that contridicts the GPL, you have 
however implied that anything that is a derivative of GPL software must 
be released to the public.

> 
> 
>>As an author and contributor of several free programs I have generally
>>used the GPL because for the things I worked on, either they were
>>already published under the GPL before I took them up or I felt that,
>>for that specific instance, the GPL best suited the application.  I
>>however am not a GPL purist who thinks all software should be written
>>under the GPL, nor all open source software written under the GPL.  I
>>don't have problems with any of the public licenses, the author of the
>>software should have the final say in what that software is used for.
> 
> 
> He doesn't, if the software is a derivative work of other GPL software,
> and is distributed in any form.

Yes he does.  He had the say when he distributed it under the GPL and 
choose the implications of that license.

> 
> 
>>If they couldn't give a damn if I take the software and make millions
>>off of it with no recompense to them then fine, if they choose a license
>> that makes the software completely unusable by me because of what I
>>want  to try and do with it, then fine again, it is their right to place
>>those  restrictions on their work.
> 
> 
> Certainly it's their right.  I've never claimed other wise.  But releasing
> something under the GPL basically prohibits it's use in many cases,
> because of it's viral clause (I don't use that term because it's
> derogative, but because it best describes the forced GPL on derivatives
> clause).
> 


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Tetherow                           tetherow at nicusa.com
Director of Development
NIC Labs (PSSG)                        http://www.nicusa.com