Why GPL?!

SDL Development
1

Why would anyone put anything under the GPL license?
Does this seem retarded to anyone else besides me?! If
its supposed to be “free software” then why does this
license require you to show people all of your code?!
And you cant sell it or use it commercially even if
you write a bunch of your own code that links with
it? that sux!!

It seems like a total waste of effort to me if people
cant benefit from using the code/library except for in
another GPL project. I dont see any good in GPL stuff,
in fact I ignore anything GPL! LGPL makes way more
sense. If I make anything I will definatly LGPL it for
everyone to use freely, as in free, as in the point of
freedom, to be able to actually use it. I cant believe
they call GPL “free software” - what B.S.!

OK so heres my question. what if I want to make a
LGPL version of something, thats based on a GPLed
library? Its not fair if people GPL everything first!
Theres only so many ways to load or manipulate a
certain filetype… and you have to learn how to do it
from somewhere. If GPL is supposed to be for
educational purposes, how can you write anything
commercial based on whats in the GPL source, without
releasing the code?! (and no, I dont mean a cut 'n
paste job…)

I think some people THINK they are helping by making
their projects GPL, but in actality are hurting us
developers since we have to rewrite it over and over
in different ways, to avoid patent problems if we want
sell it… Where if they just LGPL it, nobody would
have to reinvent the wheel to do something someone
already did properly.
(Do we LIKE to rewrite the same code over and over? I
sure dont!.. and what if the GPL code is the best
way to do it? If we cant use it commercially, dont we
all lose out!?)__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax

2

This is offtopic, we do not want or need licensing wars here, please take
this conversation elsewhere…On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 07:38:23AM -0700, Jason Robertson wrote:

Why would anyone put anything under the GPL license?
Does this seem retarded to anyone else besides me?! If
its supposed to be “free software” then why does this
license require you to show people all of your code?!
And you cant sell it or use it commercially even if
you write a bunch of your own code that links with
it? that sux!!

3

Why would anyone put anything under the GPL license?

If your primary motivation for writing software is
humanitarian, and want to encourage to do the same,
the GPL is an ecellent choice.

If its supposed to be “free software” then why does this
license require you to show people all of your code?!

If I show you mine, and you look and don’t show me yours
in return is it a fair exchange? You don’t have to look,
that’s the price of such freedom.

And you cant sell it or use it commercially even if
you write a bunch of your own code that links with
it? that sux!!

You can sell it, use it commercially, write a bunch
of your own code too, just distribute any modifications
you made to the GPL’d package in source form. GPL
doesn’t mean you can’t sell stuff. And you sure as
hell can use GPL code commercially, almost all of the
code my division runs is GPL’ed.

It seems like a total waste of effort to me if people
cant benefit from using the code/library except for in
another GPL project.

I run a system that is full of GPL software, I have not
had a need for any proprietary closed source software
in years. To me that doesn’t seem like a waste of effort.
It makes my life easier, and that’s a huge effort.

If I make anything I will definatly LGPL it for
everyone to use freely, as in free, as in the point of
freedom, to be able to actually use it.

LGPL says you can link to it, but if you make any changes
to the code you still have to distribute those changes
in source form. If you were really serious about
freedom, you would place your software in the public domain
and not claim copyright on it.

As someone who has written GPLed, LGPLed, and public domain
software for years, I will admit each has it’s uses.
But not all software is best served by LGPL or public domain.

I cant believe they call GPL “free software” - what B.S.!

Free as in intellectually free, open your damn mind free.
Not free as in gratis. There is a price attached, and that
price is that you can’t take your ball and go home…

If GPL is supposed to be for
educational purposes, how can you write anything
commercial based on whats in the GPL source, without
releasing the code?!

Do you honestly think that because you read a bit of
code you are incapible of writing original code which
does the same thing?

Copyrights on code don’t work that way, the algorithm
itself can’t be copyrighted, only the implementation.
There have been many attempts to rewrite all of the GNU
libraries with a BSD liscense. Just don’t cut and paste.

I think some people THINK they are helping by making
their projects GPL, but in actality are hurting us
developers since we have to rewrite it over and over
in different ways, to avoid patent problems if we want
sell it…

GPL doesn’t have anything to do with patents, and the GPL
doesn’t hurt. If the GPLed code wasn’t released you would
still have to reimplement it anyways correct? So how
has the GPLed software hurt you? You can,however, read the code
understand it, and reimplement better faster quicker code
because the GPL code exists. I think that would constitute
as helping. And as for selling GPLed code, you know
RMS has made a living selling GPLed code and writing GPLed
code under contract. The last two jobs I’ve had both hired
me to work on GPLed code, largely because of my GPLed contributioins.
None of this has hurt me, its padded my wallet quite nicely.

(Do we LIKE to rewrite the same code over and over?
I sure dont!.. and what if the GPL code is the best
way to do it? If we cant use it commercially, dont we
all lose out!?)

I actually like rewriting code, rewriting is the best kind of
writing. It is where you purify and correct all the errors and
compromises you had to make earlier.

The GPL has helped me to make a living. Software made with
it keeps our websites running. Lets me program in an evironment
I have near total control over. And promotes a community, in
which I have found many friends I would probably not have met
otherwise.

But that’s just my 2 cents.On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 07:38:23AM -0700, Jason Robertson wrote:

–
David J. Goehrig dave at cthulhu-burger.org

All reports, excluding those of historical fact, may be considered speculative.
- a faceless Compaq disclaimer

4

Wow, let’s try and kill this thread quickly and quietly BEFORE it starts
a three-hundred message flamewar, eh?

Why would anyone put anything under the GPL license?
Does this seem retarded to anyone else besides me?! If
its supposed to be “free software” then why does this
license require you to show people all of your code?!
And you cant sell it or use it commercially even if
you write a bunch of your own code that links with
it? that sux!!

Think of it this way…

  • You write a program.
  • You release it with source.
  • Someone else takes your source, adds a cool feature, starts selling it,
    and won’t even share the source for the new feature with you.

Wouldn’t that make you mad, to know that you helped line someone else’s
pockets and didn’t get anything out of it at all? It would for most
people, hence the GPL.

If you released your code under the GPL, they can still change it and sell
it, but they can’t stop you (or anyone else for that matter) from using
the changes they made under the same terms. And while it does not apply
to the changes they made, the original code you wrote can be used under
any license you like - more than one even. A number of people lately I
have seen writing licenses which read about like “This code is GPL. If
you don’t like that, email me and we’ll arrange something else.”

Obviously, if you don’t like it and want to make money off what they’re
doing, it’s going to cost you.

It seems like a total waste of effort to me if people
cant benefit from using the code/library except for in
another GPL project. I dont see any good in GPL stuff,
in fact I ignore anything GPL! LGPL makes way more
sense. If I make anything I will definatly LGPL it for
everyone to use freely, as in free, as in the point of
freedom, to be able to actually use it. I cant believe
they call GPL “free software” - what B.S.!

Now you’re just being inflamitory.

OK so heres my question. what if I want to make a
LGPL version of something, thats based on a GPLed
library? Its not fair if people GPL everything first!

Sounds to me like you want the right to use other people’s work without
compensation. If I steal your work, will you not be angry? Based on the
manner of your message, I suspect you definitely would be. Very few libs
are ever GPL’d anyway. And some people tend not to use the GPL for things
like example code at all. SDL is itself LGPL, and the portion you need to
link in a manner the LGPL does not permit for a prorietary program (which
I am betting are the type you write) happens to be public domain for the
purpose.

Theres only so many ways to load or manipulate a
certain filetype… and you have to learn how to do it
from somewhere. If GPL is supposed to be for
educational purposes, how can you write anything
commercial based on whats in the GPL source, without
releasing the code?! (and no, I dont mean a cut 'n
paste job…)

The GPL is not for educational purposes. The GPL exists to ensure that
the source code remains open to everyone and nobody is allowed to change
that - once it’s released, that includes the original author. (He can
choose to not release further versions under the GPL, but that’s about it
really…) Richard Stallman wrote it to be the way it is because he
thought it was a good idea. People who use the license generally agree
with his opinion, at least to some extent.

I think some people THINK they are helping by making
their projects GPL, but in actality are hurting us
developers since we have to rewrite it over and over
in different ways, to avoid patent problems if we want
sell it… Where if they just LGPL it, nobody would
have to reinvent the wheel to do something someone
already did properly.

Yaknow, there’s this company, Red Hat… They make a bundle selling GPL
code, and they’re doing it legally. You sure sound like a proprietary
software developer, one who wants other people’s code for free so you can
make something you can sell. If you can’t see why other people think that
is wrong of you to expect, I can’t help you understand it.

(Do we LIKE to rewrite the same code over and over? I
sure dont!.. and what if the GPL code is the best
way to do it? If we cant use it commercially, dont we
all lose out!?)

No - in fact, we all benefit because it means more commercial software
should then come with the source code so that if we feel inclined we might
be able to send the authors a patch to add new features or fix odd bugs
that the author may not have thought of or tested for.On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 07:38:23AM -0700, Jason Robertson wrote:

–
Joseph Carter You’re entitled to my opinion

The purpose of having mailing lists rather than having newsgroups is to
place a barrier to entry which protects the lists and their users from
invasion by the general uneducated hordes.
– Ian Jackson

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 273 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20020419/3e492710/attachment.pgp

5

Why would anyone put anything under the GPL license?
Does this seem retarded to anyone else besides me?! If
its supposed to be “free software” then why does this
license require you to show people all of your code?!

That’s the very meaning of “Free”. This is not free as in beer; we’re
talking “libre”.

And you cant sell it or use it commercially even if
you write a bunch of your own code that links with
it? that sux!!

The idea is to protect the rights of the USER - which could be you! If
you have the source for a program you’re using, you can tweak it if you
need/want, and more importantly, you can maintain the program yourself,
if the original author drops it.

This is incredibly important for companies that develop systems that are
required to work for more than 5 years. Base your system on closed source
software, and you’re screwed if the provider goes bankrupt, or just
decides to stop supporting the software, a few years later.

It seems like a total waste of effort to me if people
cant benefit from using the code/library except for in
another GPL project. I dont see any good in GPL stuff,
in fact I ignore anything GPL!

Then you’re either doing one of the few things that isn’t compatible with
Free/Open Source, or you’re totally missing the point.

LGPL makes way more
sense. If I make anything I will definatly LGPL it for
everyone to use freely, as in free, as in the point of
freedom, to be able to actually use it. I cant believe
they call GPL “free software” - what B.S.!

It’s less free than LGPL in one way, but much more free in another; the
GPL forces you to keep the original code, as well as applications using
it, truly Free. This is in order to protect users from scenarios like
those discribed above.

Both the GPL and the LGPL are meant to protect users/developers from code
being stolen and turned into closed source code. The GPL also protects
the code from being “taken advantage of” by closed source code.

In some cases, some people might just not want campanies to make big
money by writing closed source GUIs for their Free/Open Source
engines/libraries, for example. Then the GPL should be used.

OK so heres my question. what if I want to make a
LGPL version of something, thats based on a GPLed
library?

The LGPL is less restrictive than the GPL, so actually using the complete
solution (the GPL + LGPL code) as a whole under the terms of the LGPL,
would not be legal. The GPLed code is not meant to be called by Closed
Source software in any way - directly or indirectly.

Note that what is seen as “normal use” (ie loading an application on an
OS - which is theoretically a form of linking) is an exception. You are
allowed to run closed source software on the GPLed Linux kernel, for
example. (Later versions have an explicit addition to the GPL to make
this totally clear.)

Its not fair if people GPL everything first!

Why? Do you think you have a right to tell people what licence to use for
their software? Do you think them writing it for anyone to use for
FREE, and to more or less freely reuse in other projects, gives you
more right to complain? Or should id Software automatically be forced
to release the full source of the Q3 engine, just because they have given
you the right to write free (as in beer) mods for it…?

I think not. Take what you get, or hack your own.

Theres only so many ways to load or manipulate a
certain filetype… and you have to learn how to do it
from somewhere. If GPL is supposed to be for
educational purposes, how can you write anything
commercial based on whats in the GPL source, without
releasing the code?! (and no, I dont mean a cut 'n
paste job…)

This is a matter of what “based on” means. Provided Free/Open Source
advocates have become pro software patents all of a sudden, you reading
the source to learn how something works, and then hacking your own
implementation under whatever licence you like, should not be a problem.

I think some people THINK they are helping by making
their projects GPL, but in actality are hurting us
developers since we have to rewrite it over and over
in different ways, to avoid patent problems if we want
sell it…

Here we go; patents? Yeah, I’ve seen the flame wars caused by the RTLinux
patent, but that’s ONE specific case - and we all know now that that
was a very bad idea. I hope we won’t see any more of that stuff,
regardless of the intentions. It just won’t work. :frowning:

Where if they just LGPL it, nobody would
have to reinvent the wheel to do something someone
already did properly.

But are you sure everyone that’s thinking about GPL or LGPL wants to
help people that DO NOT want to use Free/Open Source licenses…?

Would you like Microsoft to make money selling closed source software that links with your Free/Open Source code?

(Do we LIKE to rewrite the same code over and over? I
sure dont!.. and what if the GPL code is the best
way to do it? If we cant use it commercially, dont we
all lose out!?)

No. GPLed software is very different from software patents.

There’s no real problem here; if you’re not happy with the licence,
either hack your own code under a different license, or contact the
copyright holder(s), and see if he/she/they are willing to sublicence the
software to your project under a compatible licence. (The TiMidity code
in SDL is an example of that.)

//David Olofson — Programmer, Reologica Instruments AB

.- M A I A -------------------------------------------------.
| Multimedia Application Integration Architecture |
| A Free/Open Source Plugin API for Professional Multimedia |
----------------------------> http://www.linuxdj.com/maia -' .- David Olofson -------------------------------------------. | Audio Hacker - Open Source Advocate - Singer - Songwriter | -------------------------------------> http://olofson.net -'On Friday 19 April 2002 16:38, Jason Robertson wrote:

6

If anybody wants to argue about it, go mail RMS and
tell him he’s all wrong about that whole “GNU/linux”
thing. That should keep anybody entertained for a
while.__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax

7

He’d ignore me. ;)On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 08:34:22AM -0700, Andrew Ford wrote:

If anybody wants to argue about it, go mail RMS and
tell him he’s all wrong about that whole “GNU/linux”
thing. That should keep anybody entertained for a
while.

–
Joseph Carter You expected a coherent reply?

C’mon! political protest! sheesh. Where’s that anarchist spirit? :wink:
– Decklin Foster

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 273 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20020419/c5dabd7f/attachment.pgp

8

It seems like a total waste of effort to me if people
cant benefit from using the code/library except for in
another GPL project. I dont see any good in GPL stuff,
in fact I ignore anything GPL! LGPL makes way more
sense. If I make anything I will definatly LGPL it for
everyone to use freely, as in free, as in the point of
freedom, to be able to actually use it. I cant believe
they call GPL “free software” - what B.S.!

[Other rhetoric snipped]

Look, the main problem that a lot of people (ie, proprietary people) seem to
have with the GPL is that although the code is freely available, it is not
without cost.

I know that may sound strange, but its not. The cost is that if you change
it, you have to contribute those changes back to the codebase (if you release
the new codebase). If you don’t agree, don’t use it !!

I really don’t see why this is so difficult to understand for some people. A
commercial company that licenses code (for example, a game company) has the
same basic idea. Their business could be to write a game engine, and then
license it to other companies to write a game around it. If you don’t agree
with their license (ie, paying for the engine), then don’t use it (ie, don’t
buy it)!! What is so difficult to understand here.

The problem is that there will ALWAYS be people who don’t want to do any
work, but still make money off the effort of others. Its exactly the same
reason why Microsoft seems to love the BSD license, but not the GPL. Because
they can’t do whatever they want to do with it without paying for it.

Here’s another example. What if you had a company, and you told all the
programmers the following:

I want to develop and release a new product, but I expect you to do all the
work for nothing and not be able to take advantage of any of the revenues
generated. What would they say? Probably nothing, you’d just see them
walking out the door !!

I can see why the GPL irritates such people. It was designed in part to not
allow these type of people to succeed.

The GPL isn’t anti-commercial or anti-business, its anti-leeching.

Anyway, enough of this,
SteveOn April 19, 2002 12:08 pm, you wrote:

9

Why would anyone put anything under the GPL license?
Does this seem retarded to anyone else besides me?! If
its supposed to be “free software” then why does this
license require you to show people all of your code?!
And you cant sell it or use it commercially even if
you write a bunch of your own code that links with
it? that sux!!

Bad troll, change troll.

Pshht pssht!

Alex.–
http://www.gnurou.org

10

LOL. People with narrow minds are always entertaining, if nothing else.

Dude, the GPL exists for a purpose, and there are 2 types of free software,
right? One is cost-free, meaning you don’t have to pay for it. The other
is free to view, modify, use, etc. GPL’ed software is both.

The GPL exists to make sure that free software stays free. If you take a
bunch of free software, modify it, then sell it – it’s no longer free is
it? Someone’s got to pay for your slight modifications on a large codebase
that you got for free.

The GPL also helps keep software public, meaning that one company or person
can’t really have complete control over a GPL’ed piece of software. If
company xx decides they no longer want to invest time in the non-free
software they’ve created, all the users of that software won’t get any
further updates – they’ve effectively been stranded by the company.
However, if the software is GPL’ed, then the users can take the code and
continue to maintain and extend it. It doesn’t need to die because the
originator lost interest.

The LGPL exists for the benefit of people who want to use GPL’ed software in
their commercial apps. LGPL’ed libraries are free to use in commercial
software, and by using the library you don’t have to release your code that
uses the library. However, if you modify the library itself, your
modifications fall under the GPL and you must release your modifications of
the library. Everyone wins. The library wins because it gets
bugfixes/modifications from its users, and the users win because they get a
great piece of software for free.

Really, I don’t see many GPL’ed libraries (that’s what you’re really talking
about here). Most GPL software are applications. But, nobody’s forcing you
to use any bit of software.

If you don’t like the GPL, don’t use any GPL’ed apps, and don’t release any
software under it… nobody’s hurt by that – there are pleny of others who
will keep the flame burning. Because you don’t like it doesn’t make the GPL
any less important. Nobody can deny the benefit of having gcc GPL’ed. It’s
currently one of the best and most robust development environments around,
and unlike Microsoft’s Dev Studio, you don’t have to pay anything for it,
and if there’s a bug, you don’t need to wait until Microsoft decides it’s
worth fixing… you can fix it yourself and submit your change!! That’s a
kind of freedom, too. Freedom from your ability to work depending upon
someone else’s whims, and ability to develop software no matter what your
financial background is!

If you can’t see the benefit of that, I really feel sorry for you.> ----- Original Message -----

From: dead_alive2002@yahoo.com (Jason Robertson)
To:
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 7:38 AM
Subject: [SDL] Why GPL?!

Why would anyone put anything under the GPL license?
Does this seem retarded to anyone else besides me?! If
its supposed to be “free software” then why does this
license require you to show people all of your code?!
And you cant sell it or use it commercially even if
you write a bunch of your own code that links with
it? that sux!!

It seems like a total waste of effort to me if people
cant benefit from using the code/library except for in
another GPL project. I dont see any good in GPL stuff,
in fact I ignore anything GPL! LGPL makes way more
sense. If I make anything I will definatly LGPL it for
everyone to use freely, as in free, as in the point of
freedom, to be able to actually use it. I cant believe
they call GPL “free software” - what B.S.!

OK so heres my question. what if I want to make a
LGPL version of something, thats based on a GPLed
library? Its not fair if people GPL everything first!
Theres only so many ways to load or manipulate a
certain filetype… and you have to learn how to do it
from somewhere. If GPL is supposed to be for
educational purposes, how can you write anything
commercial based on whats in the GPL source, without
releasing the code?! (and no, I dont mean a cut 'n
paste job…)

I think some people THINK they are helping by making
their projects GPL, but in actality are hurting us
developers since we have to rewrite it over and over
in different ways, to avoid patent problems if we want
sell it… Where if they just LGPL it, nobody would
have to reinvent the wheel to do something someone
already did properly.
(Do we LIKE to rewrite the same code over and over? I
sure dont!.. and what if the GPL code is the best
way to do it? If we cant use it commercially, dont we
all lose out!?)

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl

11

Dude, the GPL exists for a purpose, and there are 2 types of free
software,
right? One is cost-free, meaning you don’t have to pay for it. The other
is free to view, modify, use, etc. GPL’ed software is both.

GPLed is not free to modify… completely free software would be more like
BSD or MIT, where you don’t have to contrib or opensource your mods if you
dont want to. GPL is designed to keep everything under it perpetually open
source. It makes a lot of sense in many way, and doesn’t make sense in
others. It depends on what you need.

The GPL exists to make sure that free software stays free. If you take
a
bunch of free software, modify it, then sell it – it’s no longer free is
it? Someone’s got to pay for your slight modifications on a large
codebase
that you got for free.

GPL is supposed to be ‘free use’ not free pricewise. Probably should be
PEUPPL- Protect End User/Programmer Public Liscence. There is nothing about
not charging for stuff that is GPLed… but charging for OSS is not exactly
lucrative.

The GPL also helps keep software public, meaning that one company or
person
can’t really have complete control over a GPL’ed piece of software. If
company xx decides they no longer want to invest time in the non-free
software they’ve created, all the users of that software won’t get any
further updates – they’ve effectively been stranded by the company.
However, if the software is GPL’ed, then the users can take the code and
continue to maintain and extend it. It doesn’t need to die because the
originator lost interest.

I’ll agree to that.

The LGPL exists for the benefit of people who want to use GPL’ed software
in
their commercial apps. LGPL’ed libraries are free to use in commercial
software, and by using the library you don’t have to release your code
that
uses the library. However, if you modify the library itself, your
modifications fall under the GPL and you must release your modifications
of
the library. Everyone wins. The library wins because it gets
bugfixes/modifications from its users, and the users win because they get
a
great piece of software for free.

LGPL is our friend.

If you don’t like the GPL, don’t use any GPL’ed apps, and don’t release
any
software under it… nobody’s hurt by that – there are pleny of others
who
will keep the flame burning. Because you don’t like it doesn’t make the
GPL
any less important. Nobody can deny the benefit of having gcc GPL’ed.
It’s
currently one of the best and most robust development environments around,
and unlike Microsoft’s Dev Studio, you don’t have to pay anything for it,
and if there’s a bug, you don’t need to wait until Microsoft decides it’s
worth fixing… you can fix it yourself and submit your change!! That’s a
kind of freedom, too. Freedom from your ability to work depending upon
someone else’s whims, and ability to develop software no matter what your
financial background is!

I actually like dev studio… :-D, good IDE anyway. And sometimes with a
GPLed pecie you have to wait for someone to add to it because you lack the
skill/knowledge. But everything has it’s cost. Sometimes companies are more
responsive to their users than OSS developers. Not always though.

Did you hear that MS is making use of GPLed software (such as SAMBA and
Mozilla) in conjunction with it’s software (such as Windows, and IIS)
illegal? That’s just idiotic. It’s like a blind man saying he’ll shoot
everyone he see’s wearing a green shirt…

but, anyway… Now that I’ve put my 2 cents in and broke all the rules,
isn’t this majorly off topic and not belonging her?

-Jim

12

Why would anyone put anything under the GPL license?
Does this seem retarded to anyone else besides me?! If
its supposed to be “free software” then why does this
license require you to show people all of your code?!
And you cant sell it or use it commercially even if
you write a bunch of your own code that links with
it? that sux!!

SDL is under the LGPL license, and this is offtopic. Please take this
discussion somewhere other than the SDL mailing list.

–ryan.

13

This isn’t a question for the SDL mailing list! :^P

-bill!On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 07:38:23AM -0700, Jason Robertson wrote:

Why would anyone put anything under the GPL license?