Free Software advancing : First GPL game released , Winamp and Milkdrop freed

[aneeshm]

I said marketed - they could easily have included the BSD notice in some obscure little corner . Again , the GPL's heavy-handedness is the price you pay for using the code in the first place .

AFAIK , the goal of the GPL is not just to provide a free alternative , but also to make GPLd libraries in all areas so feature rich and easy to use ( for devs ) , and so much software free , that is becomes impossible to practically create something which does not contain any shrad of free software . Stallman himself says that this is his ultimate objective ( though not explicitly ) .

[Asher]

Originally posted by aneeshm
I said marketed

All advertising materials

AFAIK , the goal of the GPL is not just to provide a free alternative , but also to make GPLd libraries in all areas so feature rich and easy to use ( for devs ) , and so much software free , that is becomes impossible to practically create something which does not contain any shrad of free software . Stallman himself says that this is his ultimate objective ( though not explicitly ) .

Yes, and that's the failure of the GPL.

MS got a lot of flak for calling the GPL a "viral" license (or "cancerous"), but the comparison is apt. If GPL software is added to non-GPL software, it "contaminates" the software and forces it to become GPL itself.

I find that repulsive behavior, and I can't stand the license.

[LDiCesare]

Having all code free is an utopia. I wouldn't work as a software programmer if I wasn't paid. The GPL license is therefore too restrictive to be very useful. The LGPL license looks better, since you can at least link with code using that license.
I think BSD is a good license.
Plus there have been great freeware games like NetHack for years.

[CapTVK]

Why is this news? There are plenty of commerical games that have been released as GPL (source code excluding the binaries) or even JA2.

[CapTVK]

Originally posted by Asher

All advertising materials

Yes, and that's the failure of the GPL.

MS got a lot of flak for calling the GPL a "viral" license (or "cancerous"), but the comparison is apt. If GPL software is added to non-GPL software, it "contaminates" the software and forces it to become GPL itself.

I find that repulsive behavior, and I can't stand the license.

Doesn´t that go for commerical copyrighted code as well?If i use commerical code in a program of my own that´s viral too.

[Asher]

Originally posted by CapTVK
Doesn´t that go for commerical copyrighted code as well?If i use commerical code in a program of my own that´s viral too.

Um. What?

If you use commercial code, you can use it however you negotiated the terms with the copyright owner.

You can use it without providing your sourcecode to anyone or adjusting the entire project's license. This happens all the time, especially in games.

It costs $300K-$1M to license the Unreal 3 game engine, but you don't need to adjust your product's license or give Epic your source code...

[Asher]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
Having all code free is an utopia. I wouldn't work as a software programmer if I wasn't paid. The GPL license is therefore too restrictive to be very useful. The LGPL license looks better, since you can at least link with code using that license.
I think BSD is a good license.
Plus there have been great freeware games like NetHack for years.

That's precisely it.

Not all code will be free code. Ever. It's more likely that the entire world will become communist first and worship their God, Asher.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
Because it's excessively restrictive/communist.

I prefer the libertarian style of the BSD license.

Of course. If Berkeley released their software with a GPL license, Microsoft would be able to steal their TCP stack without even saying thank you.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
Having all code free is an utopia. I wouldn't work as a software programmer if I wasn't paid.

Not necessarily, all you need is a different business model.

Originally posted by LDiCesare
The GPL license is therefore too restrictive to be very useful. The LGPL license looks better, since you can at least link with code using that license.
I think BSD is a good license.

I don't see how it is restrictive. In fact, it relaxs existing copyright laws.

Originally posted by LDiCesare
Plus there have been great freeware games like NetHack for years.

The problem with freeware (as opposed to free software) is others have no access to the code. Thus, if the original author(s) drop(s) the project, it is dead.

[Fve Crathva]

The GPL restricts the ability of the person making use of GPLed code. I cannot use GPLed code in a project that isn't open source. That is a restriction. Therefore, the GPL is restrictive, because when something restricts something else, it is restrictive.

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.1?s=restrict

The BSD license is also restrictive. It restricts the licencee's ability not to include some text with their software. Also, it restricts the licencee's ability to take unfair advantage of the licenser's name. Those are the good, fair kind of restrictions. Many of the GPL's restrictions are impractical and ideological.

Also, the BSD license is easier to read than the GPL. It's even easier to read than the less restrictive MIT license, because the BSD licence is partly in bullet form.

SP

[aneeshm]

AFAIK , colloborative development works better on GPLd projects . Plus , the GPL is very very lenient if you're not distributing the program . Would GCC , GNU binary utilities , GDB , and other things be as useful if they were not open ? One of GCC's main strengths is that it can compile almost anywhere for anything . I can compile for virtually any platform that matters sitting right at home on my little x86_64 box .

I know what your reply would be , so there is another aspect to it , too . What prevents Embrace , Extend , Extinguish tactics if you're using a BSD/MIT license ?


Just tell me again - if the BSD license was domianat and adopted , what would prevent someone lifting the entire GNU toolchain , the Linux kernel , repackaging it , and claiming that it ( the repackaging in more user-friendly form ) was a great innovation , while using the BSD credits notice to entice more customers by saying that it was "built on a stable and solid UNIX system" ?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Fve Crathva
The GPL restricts the ability of the person making use of GPLed code. I cannot use GPLed code in a project that isn't open source. That is a restriction. Therefore, the GPL is restrictive, because when something restricts something else, it is restrictive.

As compared to public domain yes. As compared to existing copyright laws, no.

Originally posted by Fve Crathva
Many of the GPL's restrictions are impractical and ideological.

The entire purpose of GPL is to enrich the free and open software base. If anybody wants to modify and/or include GPL'ed code in their programs, they need to give something back. That is the price. As I pointed out, this is less restrictive than existing copyright laws.

Of course, anybody who only wants to use GPL programs are entirely free to do so.

[Asher]

Originally posted by aneeshm
AFAIK , colloborative development works better on GPLd projects . Plus , the GPL is very very lenient if you're not distributing the program . Would GCC , GNU binary utilities , GDB , and other things be as useful if they were not open ? One of GCC's main strengths is that it can compile almost anywhere for anything . I can compile for virtually any platform that matters sitting right at home on my little x86_64 box .

Sure, but GCC is a terrible compiler. It accepts malformed code without so much as a warning (making portability a nightmare to more correct platforms), its compile time and runtime performance are also abysmal compared to other compilers (ie, IBM's compilers for Power/PowerPC, Intel's compilers for x86).

I know what your reply would be , so there is another aspect to it , too . What prevents Embrace , Extend , Extinguish tactics if you're using a BSD/MIT license ?

The superior product wins. Customers buy what they want and need. If someone takes an existing technology, improves upon it, and makes it available to the public...I see no problem with that.

Just tell me again - if the BSD license was domianat and adopted , what would prevent someone lifting the entire GNU toolchain , the Linux kernel , repackaging it , and claiming that it ( the repackaging in more user-friendly form ) was a great innovation , while using the BSD credits notice to entice more customers by saying that it was "built on a stable and solid UNIX system" ?

Think about it -- that source code is still there. If someone takes it on and improves upon it, good on them. Apple did as much with MacOS X, didn't it?

GNU promotes mediocrity. GCC is a versatile compiler that accepts malformed code and generates crappy code as a result. The binaries are bloaty and slow. It's the perfect example of GPL code.

GPL spends too much time forcing an ideology, rather than helping consumers actually get quality programs.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The entire purpose of GPL is to enrich the free and open software base.

I completely agree! And that's why it's a terrible license.

The entire purpose of the BSD license is to enrich and propagate quality code where possible, leading to superior products.

Of course, anybody who only wants to use GPL programs are entirely free to do so.

I want to use the GNU front-end for my own compiler, which is a proprietary backend that my company spent $160M developing over 5 years.

Unfortunately, I can't do that without making my backend open-sourced so my competitors can use it against me.

Why would I spend $160M of my company's capital in investing in something that provides me zero benefit w.r.t. my competition?

The argument could be made that GPL stifles innovation because it removes the incentive for competition.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
I completely agree! And that's why it's a terrible license.

The entire purpose of the BSD license is to enrich and propagate quality code where possible, leading to superior products.

The problem with the BSD license is users do not need to add back to the existing base. Thus the GPL works much better in this regard.

Originally posted by Asher
I want to use the GNU front-end for my own compiler, which is a proprietary backend that my company spent $160M developing over 5 years.

If you have spent $160M for a compiler, chances are you don't need to use the GNU front-end (if there is such a thing).

Originally posted by Asher
Unfortunately, I can't do that without making my backend open-sourced so my competitors can use it against me.

More FUD. You may use any GPL'ed code. Have you actually read the GNU Public License?