iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them

[Anthony Morton]

> You totally misunderstood my point.  This is not "open source" versus 
> "proprietary", this is GPL versus more free OSS licenses.

Actually, I'm pretty agnostic about OSS licences in general.  What I 
was responding to was the idea that the GPL has no right to exist at 
all and that people who release software under the GPL are somehow 
'communist' compared with those who use other OSS licences.  So I 
pointed out that in a world without the GPL, it's conceivable that some 
open-source versus closed-source decisions for what is now open-source 
software might have come down in favour of closed-source instead.

>> So a GPL-style licence works as a kind of patent, that allows others 
>> to benefit from your stuff while you retain control over your IP.
>
> No you don't. They can fork it and do with it whatever they want.  
> They have to make the result GPL but you don't have control over it.

You have control in the sense that you can always take their improved 
code and merge it back into your project.

> Some people find a great advantage to contributing source code, others 
> rather keep it proprietary.  That is their prerogative.

Of course.  But the GPL offers one more option to those who are of a 
mind to keep their code proprietary but might experiment with 
open-source if they can retain some control.

> The GPL is "communistic" in that it tries to exert control over MY IP 
> if I happen to build on other's shoulders (who submitted their work to 
> be used by others, not stolen).

But if the alternative is that those others don't publish their code at 
all, it's a moot point.  You don't have any work by others on which to 
base your IP, and you'll have to develop it from scratch, in which case 
you can do what you like with it.

> True free software licenses don't do that.   GPL us RMS's wet dream 
> come true for his control freak ideology while others work on truly 
> free software like the BSD licensed stuff.

I'm reluctant to buy into arguments about what is and isn't 'free 
software', and I can see that BSD licensed software is 'free' in ways 
that GPL software isn't and vice versa.  And I don't necessarily see 
any merit in the FSF-vs-iPhone stuff.  At the same time, if the FSF had 
operated as a closed shop instead of publishing all their code they 
could hardly be less control-freakish than they are, and yet they'd 
just be behaving like a typical software company.

And of course, if I were a commercial developer looking for code on 
which to base my own software project I'd be much happier if it were 
BSD licensed than GPL'd.  But ultimately it's the original developer's 
right to choose which licence to use.

Tony M.