iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them

[Jean-Christophe Helary]

On 2 juil. 07, at 06:00, Charlton Wilbur wrote:

> The GPL no more *caused* open source than the BSD license did; they  
> were both part of the same movement, that arose for the same  
> reasons; the difference is that Stallman was rather more strident  
> and had a rather more ideological take on the whole thing.

Interesting how people who favor the GPL can be called "nutters"  
"communists" on a list of seemingly reasonable people.

Regarding the above sentence, I think nothing could be further from  
the truth. Besides, there is still this confusion between free  
software and open source software.

"Open source software" as such _never_ existed before the GPL. The  
term itself was coined in opposition to what the FSF called free  
software. So indeed, there was _no_ open source source software  
before the GPL. Any claim to the contrary is BS. Now maybe it was  
called something else, but I challenge you to remember the naming at  
the time !

And singling out the FSF and Stallman for their "ideology" is a  
little preposterous. The OSI definitely represents another ideology  
and the the BSD/MIT too. Such licenses are _not_ part of the same  
movement as the GPL at all. They were developed with a closed code  
release in mind and the openness of the code as a by-product  
necessary for academic activity.

Who would have imagined at that time that most of the code would be  
released _out_ of academic or enterprise circles at the time, and  
that most of the code would be used outside those circles anyway.

The GPL and other free license represent the will of the individual  
to actually ensure the code is shared equally and _never_ stolen.

I find that very contradictory that some people here get all excited  
when we talk about small developers who manage to create immensely  
successful apps for the Mac because they don't release their code  
(and can't get it stolen) but at the same time don't mind the idea of  
stealing BSD/MIT (or others) licensed code.

But I think the line is not there. I think the line is with people  
who want strong protection of their code: either they close it or  
they use a share alike/free license like the GPL (and both come at a  
price) on one side, and on the other side people who don't mind  
stealing other people's idea by closing otherwise freely available  
code. I think that is where the line is.

(And apparently, Parallels has crossed the line with version 3 of  
their soft...)

Jean-Christophe Helary