iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them

[LuKreme]

On 2-Jul-2007, at 06:52, Charlton Wilbur wrote:
> It is impossible to profit from GPL-licensed software directly;

That's pretty much the entire ethos of the GPL.

> you can sell the first copy for as much as you like, but the  
> purchaser can turn around and *give* the software away, completely  
> legally.  It is *designed* to do this, and it's foolish to pretend  
> otherwise.

Who's pretending otherwise?  It's the people who are claiming that  
the BSD license is "just like GPL, only better" that are pretending.

> Wise people who want to profit from their code directly (and not  
> from support contracts for their code) don't release it under an  
> open source license in the first place, or produce a legal hedge  
> such as MySQL's approach, where the GPL doesn't apply if it's for  
> commercial redistribution.

Not everyone feels the need to profit from their code.  There are  
plenty of ways to make money with OSS, it just happens that coding is  
not, directly, one of them.

>> The alternative, if you want to maintain control over your IP, is  
>> of course the traditional approach where you don't publish  
>> anything.  Should I presume those who call the GPL 'communist' or  
>> 'anti-competitive' because of its restrictions have a similar  
>> attitude to developers who don't publish their source code?
>
> If you want to maintain control over your code, you don't release  
> it under any open source licence.  Once it's released, you retain  
> just as much control over the IP with the BSD or MIT license,

That patently false, because the BSD license allows someone to  
package your code and SELL IT.

> and the choice of licenses determines how much you control over  
> other people's IP in the form of works derivative to yours.  The  
> fact that the FSF has managed to redefine "free" in such a way that  
> the GPL, with all its restrictions on how subsequent users may use  
> the licensed code, is considered more "free" than the BSD or MIT  
> license is a triumph of propaganda over clear thought.

It's because with the GPL it is the CODE that is free, with the BSD/ 
MIT licenses it is the CODER who is free. The GPL is designed to  
ensure that the code is always free once designated as free.  It's  
the only license that does that.  It also ensures that changes tot he  
code are also FREE and freely available.

It's a huge difference.  Personally, I think I prefer free CODE to  
free CODERS.

-- 
I want a refund, I want a light, I want a reason for all this night  
after night after night after night