From: Austin Ziegler <austin@...>
Date: 2003-07-10T05:54:56+09:00
Subject: Re: OT: GPL - was Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 05:28:56 +0900, Hal E. Fulton wrote:
>>>�Are you honestly saying that you don't understand�why people
>>>don't like the GPL?�
>>>>�I can't imagine how I gave you that impression.��I am saying that
>>many of those people have a deep�misunderstanding of the�GPL.��I
>>know that there are many people who do understand the GPL and�have
>>good�reasons not to like it. �I understand these reasons and this
>>is�not what I�have been talking about. �The fact that certain
>>people might have�reasons�not to like the GPL does not make the GPL
>>viral. �It simply makes�it a�license that some people don't
>>like.��What I have been arguing is that the GPL is not viral.�You
>>might not like it, but it's still not viral.�
>>�Well, I personally never said it was viral. In any case,�that is a
>figure of speech. No one actually believes�that a license reproduces
>itself magically or even�programmatically.��I know you disagree, but
>I think this discussion *is*�largely semantic in nature.��I'll
>summarize my own point of view, then I'll refrain�from adding to
>this off-topic thread. FWIW, I don't�think we "really" disagree
>here.��Many times when we say we are "forced" to do something,�we
>mean that we have chosen an unpleasant option that�was the least
>unpleasant of all our options. Often the�alternatives are so
>outrageous as to be eliminated�subconsicously.��"I had to eat
>broccoli." No, you didn't. You could have�gone hungry.�"I had to buy
>a black car." No, you didn't. You could�have ridden a horse.�"I had
>to appear in court." No, you didn't. You could�have become a
>fugitive.�"I had to hit my brakes." No, you didn't. You could
>have�simply hit the other car.��Suppose I want to write killer app
>X, and there is a library�Y (one and only one) that suits my
>purposes well. The others�are incomplete, buggy, inferior, written
>in COBOL, whatever.��What I *want* to do is use library Y and put my
>own app X�under my own FooBar license. Oops! Library Y is GPL.��My
>choices become:�1. Don't write app X�2. Spend hundreds of man-hours
>rewriting library Y�3. GPL my app��No, no one is "forced" to pick
>(3). But often the perception�is that (1) and (2) are even more
>unthinkable. That is why�people say that they are "forced" to GPL
>their code.��Of course it's a figure of speech. I have the
>alternative of�not writing the code, just as I have the alternative
>of�being a truck driver instead of a programmer, or I have
>the�alternative of suicide instead of living.��First of all, let's
>accept the constraints that "I remain a�programmer" and "I don't
>kill myself" (and an infinite number�of other similar constraints,
>such as "the Earth is not�destroyed by an asteroid tonight").��Then
>let's add the constraints that: 1. I write the code;�2. I use the
>library; 3. I obey the license; then I AM FORCED�to GPL my code.
>Unless I am in in some bizarre parallel universe�where "A is not A"
>and there are more than five Platonic
>solids.��Cheers,�Hal��"Diagonally parked in a parallel
>universe..."��--�Hal Fulton�hal9000@hypermetrics.com-- 
austin ziegler    * austin@halostatue.ca * Toronto, ON, Canada
software designer * pragmatic programmer * 2003.07.09
                                         * 16:51:07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBPwyAkGZOwWepqGDiEQIPbACgjpAdecdjXRgl1nDiJiCTwFyMcoMAoL99
o9U9kSTOrS6mm4gFr6JacDEe
=EfKl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----