iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them

[David P. Henderson]

On 03 Jul 2007, at 11:34, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:

>
> On 4 juil. 07, at 00:20, David P. Henderson wrote:
>
>> On 03 Jul 2007, at 10:29, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
>>
>>> Think Kerberos and the way it has been modified by Microsoft to  
>>> ruin the efforts of the community to have a vendor neutral protocol.
>>>
>>> Was it added value ? No, it was just distorting the original so  
>>> that nobody would use it anymore. Was that innovation ? No, it  
>>> was stealing, plain and simple.
>>>
>>> Obviously the Kerberos developers with their MIT license had not  
>>> considered the consequences of their move...
>>
>> How exactly would the GPL have stopped MS from doing this to  
>> Kerberos.
>
> Figure it out yourself...
>
Seriously, how does the GPL stop anyone from modifying the code in  
such a way that makes it completely unusable. By its very nature the  
GPL permits such so long as the modified code is distributed as per  
the original license. So how exactly would the GPL have stopped MS or  
any other vendor/coder from perverting the code.

>> There have been many complaints from the KHTML community that  
>> Apple did exactly this when it adopted KHTML for use in Web Kit.  
>> And there was absolutely nothing the KHTML creators could do to  
>> stop Apple since it followed the letter of the license.
>
> How can you know since there is no code audit possible ? Not that I  
> am suspecting Apple of wrongdoing but unless you are an insider at  
> Apple I don't see how you have access to that information.
>
I don't need inside info. KHTML is LGPL. WebKit is a derivative of  
KHTML and is also released under the LGPL (the bits based on KHTML)  
and other parts under BSD. As for how the KHTML community reacted to  
what Apple did. That is based on reading first hand accounts of some  
of the leaders of the KHTML project reactions to the initial code  
released by Apple. The number one complaint was that Apple had  
modified the code in such a way as to make it impossible fold Apple's  
fixes and improvements back into the KHTML trunk code.

>> All code bases under open source licenses can be readily abused  
>> intentionally or not without violating the terms of the license.
>
> Like how ? Like Tivo ? How many other examples do you have ?
>
I thought only one example was necessary to prove how overly abused  
BSD/MIT style licenses are. So I gave the one example of which I am  
aware. Look if the GPL is so good at keeping code bases from  
fragmenting in serious ways then why is there so much diversity in  
the GNU/Linux code base.

>> Continuing to use phrases like "steal," "stealing," and "theft"  
>> with regard to licenses which approximate public domain make you  
>> sound like a marxist chanting, "property is theft."
>
> And you don't like chants ? Or is their a deeper meaning to that ad- 
> hominem ? And where did you see that copyright "approximates"  
> public domain ? Public domain is specifically where there is no  
> copyright.
>
No more ad-hominem than your incendiary use of steal, stealing or  
theft in regard to consumers of BSD/MIT licensed code.

You do know the meaning of approximate, don't you? I did not claim  
that BSD/MIT or similar licenses were public domain only that they  
are far closer to it than say the GPL. Yes, BSD and MIT are blanket  
permissions to use copyrighted materials liberally. The only onus  
from the licenses is that you have to keep the original license/ 
copyright notice with the code you use.

GPL adherents keep trying to convince the rest of us that it is the  
greatest thing since indoor plumbing and sanitation. The difference  
for me comes down to FSF GPL requires me to cede my rights to it for  
any contributions I make while BSD & MIT allow me to use and  
contribute as I see fit without requiring me to cede my rights to the  
original authors of the code. In fact, under GPL only the original  
copyright holder can negotiate exemptions to the GPL with commercial  
entities thereby potentially profiting from my contributions while I  
am not permitted to profit from my work. Note: I write software, and  
while I enjoy it greatly, I do have a family to feed, so I like to  
get paid for my work. Also, in my experience software consumers  
expect to get support whether or not they've paid for it.

Dave
--
Chaoswerks Design
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price,  
peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first and love of  
soft living and the get-rich-quick theory of life."
     - Theodore Roosevelt