Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!grumpy.fl.net.au!news.webspan.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!chi-news.cic.net!news.synet.net!imdave
From: imdave@synet.net (Dave Bodenstab)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL (was: Linux vs whatever)
Date: 29 Jan 1997 04:16:30 GMT
Organization: Dave Bodenstab's home machine
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <5cmiuu$iud@garuda.synet.net>
References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <32ECB442.41C67EA6@freebsd.org> <32ED1866.34F02393@indiana.edu> <5cl66d$l52@web.nmti.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dial34.synet.net
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:154799 comp.os.linux.networking:66457 comp.os.linux.setup:94352 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2080 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:51238 comp.os.os2.advocacy:264065
This debate rages back and forth, but one thing that never seems
to be mentioned is the rights of the original author. The GPL
gives rights from the *author* to other parties. These other parties
clearly have a choice when contemplating a software project:
a. build on the works of others to improve it, reduce
development costs/time, etc.
b. write everything from scratch
If they choose 'a', then why isn't it reasonable that they adhere to
any conditions imposed by the authors of the works that forms the
basis of the new work? If they don't like this, it is possible to
negotiate separate terms with the original authors!
If they choose 'b', then they can do anything they want.
The *author* on the other hand, is *not* restricted by the GPL.
The *author* can even provide the same work under completely different
terms to a party -- although that party could obtain the work
from a source under the original GPL -- so it doesn't make much
sense for an author to do this unless additional services and/or
works are included. The only thing an author cannot do is
rescind the rights to that source that has been released.
The main point is that *derived* works by the *author* are owned
by the *author* who is free to impose *any* terms they want. It is
true that a third party could decide to enhance the original GPL'ed
work to duplicate the features of the author's new work, but a third
party could write a replacement from scratch if they so desire.
Presumably the *author* is in a better position to continue the
development of derived works and keep a step ahead of the "competition".
I fail to see why, if someone uses other's works as the basis of
their own work, that they feel "strangled by the GPL" -- they should
have chosen option 'b' in that case. Furthermore, an *author* always
has complete rights to any works derived *by the author* from the
*author's* GPL'ed work.
Dave Bodenstab
imdave@synet.net