From: "W. Kent Starr" Date: 2001-11-08T04:18:19+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:24572] Re: can GPL feature be a Ruby standard? (was: kill rdtool?) Mark Hahn wrote: > > >From the GPL faq: > > "By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication > mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are > used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if > the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex > internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two > parts as combined into a larger program". > ... > "However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software > alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure > that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they > are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single > program". > > Your method of "hitting the "Backup" button on the GUI spawn(ing) off a > seperate process that in turn called the GPL'ed "tapeinfo" program", could > be argued to be "make them effectively a single program". I'm not saying it > IS a violation of the GPL, just that it could be argued to be. What is > "intimate enough" anyway? > > In the commercial world, the possibility of legal action is enough to be a > show-stopper for a technology. > > Anyone can ship whatever they want and take a risk, but making something > that is GPL part of a standard is forcing everyone to take that risk. > > --- Slightly off topic --- > > >From "Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library" on GNU > website: > > ... "We free software developers should support one another. By releasing > libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each other's > free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives. The whole free > software movement will have more popularity, because free software as a > whole will stack up better against the competition". > > This clearly states their attitude of "us versus them". GNU's intent is to > hamper commercial software to the benefit of free software. > Taken out of context, it would appear so. However, there is also this, from the preamble to the GPL: "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things." Many people are confused by the word "free" as it relates to GPL licensed software. It means non-proprietary, -not- non-commercial. There -is- a difference. Bottom line is that a commercial entity wanting to leverage GPL'd work into its offerings saves $$$ on R&D, but must be willing to allow its own source contributions to be made available for use, redistribution, further development, re-engineering, refactoring and peer review by others not associated with itself. This does -not- mean it is in any way prohibited from selling a product to those who have no interest, or immediate interest, in any of the above and simply want a program to do a job as quickly and efficiently as they can get it up and running. There is a market (in some venues a -huge- market) for point->click_>install->run! :-) Also, part of the standard GPL is this: "11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION." which also has certain advantages to a commercial entity, especially to those not of the "deep-pockets" crowd. While there may be imposed restrictions on the effective extent of the above (which may vary, in the US, from state to state) it is still a protection of sorts to the developer, especially when source code is modified by end users downline. OTOH, an entity which does not wish to make source code available is free to reinvent the wheel and spend the R&D $$$ necessary, keep its source closed and, like the GPL developer if s/he elects, charge whatever they want for the end product (or what the market will bear). Naturally, their costs going into the project will be that much greater due to the fact they are not able to leverage prior art that is GPL'd. It's a choice. Ultimately, the end-user market will be the guiding influence as to which choice is better. Regards, W. Kent Starr elderburn@mindspring.com