[Asterisk-Users] Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition

[Esben Stien]

"trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com" <trixter at 0xdecafbad.com> writes:

> Protecting freedoms by putting limits on (thus restricting
> freedoms).  Interesting concept.

I need to repeat here. The gpl's purpose is to protect the freedoms
that comes with free software. So, you have only the freedoms that
comes with free software as defined by the FSF. You are not allowed to
do what you like. You are constrained to the freedoms that follows the
software and I think that is a very interesting concept.

> copyright and license to use are different.

I never claimed otherwise. 

> You can technically put software out there with no copyright but
> under the gpl license

Then there would be no one to enforce the license, which would be bad.

> it only restricts *their* code (ie modifications).  

Yes, but we also want all modifications to be free

> the cost of restricting freedoms on others and what they can do
> with their code

Yes, by using the GPL you restrict everyone to the four freedoms
defined in the free software definition. This is exactly what we want.

> The BSD license for example lets your code remain free while giving
> people the freedom to create code of their own, as a modification of
> yours, and use their code how they want.

This is exactly the reason I choose GPL, because it doesn't allow
people to do whatever they want. They only have the freedoms that
comes with free software, which is exactly what we want. This ensures
that the code stays free and any modification too it is also
free. This is what we want and you obviously want something else.

When we, the saints of the church of emacs, speaks about free software
we are referring to the freedoms that comes with free software
(nothing more, nothing less). Free software has a definite definition
for us, which is that of the fsf.

> If people want your version they can always get that from you, and
> so it is intact as 'free'.

Yes, but we also want the modifications to the software to be free. We
basically want what's defined in the GPL.

> It does not give full unrestricted modification clauses.  

You can modify it as much as you want as long as the modifications
also are free, just as the original code.

> proposed GPL 3.0 

I rather not discuss GPL 3.0 before a draft. 

> Your version which you released 'free' would still be there.  In its
> unmodified glory.

By using the GPL, we also ensure that any modification to it, be
free. This is desired.

> The GPL does not ensure freedom to all

It ensures the freedoms that are defined in the free software
definition.

> it works like a parasite and infects future code 

Yes, this parasitic effect is exactly what we want. 

> All it does is force others who write code to be assimilated into the
> same doctrine.  

Yes, which is exactly what we want. If you choose to use GPL code, you
have to follow the rules.

> I guess what I am trying to say is that GPL does little to protect the
> original author

The copyright protects the original author by law. 

> it removes freedoms from subsequent authors by forcing them to
> license in the same way.

Yes, and that's what I love about free software. The software stays
free.

> it doesnt guarantee the freedom of subsequent authors, it curtails
> that freedom.

Once again, it only guarantee freedoms that follow free software. 

> And you can copyright (and infact do) without the GPL.

Yes, but we use the gpl to protect the freedoms that follows free software. 

> The GPL is *not* a copyright it is a license for use.  They are very
> different things.  You can copyright something and distro it without
> GPLing it.  

Indeed. 

> The free software continues to be as free as the author wants.

Yes, the copyright holder can do whatever he feels like with the
code. Once he puts a GPL on it and release it, the code is free for
ever and any modifications to it is also free. By holding the
copyright, he can also choose to change the license, but only on the
code that he holds the copyright of. The code that was released as
free, however, stays free.

> it does however curtail the freedoms of any subsequent authors that
> enhance the code.

Which again, it's the desired effect. 

> subsequent authors now have *no* choice in how they license it, they
> are forced to license it the same way as you, which curtails
> freedom.

Yes, glad you understand cause this is the purpose. The freedoms that
follow free software will continue to follow it and neither you nor
anyone else can change that.

> The modifications are the *only* difference between what you release and
> what they release, so if they use your code as a base and make changes
> to suit a particular need, their code, which they did write all of,
> cannot be licensed how they choose

This is exactly what we want. 

> the parasitic nature of the GPL means that their modifications,
> *their* code, must also be GPLed

You're just explaining what we want. 

> The GPL doesnt protect freedom, it curtails freedom of future
> developers.

The GPL protects the freedoms that comes with free software. 

More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of
the software:

    * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
    * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your 
    needs. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
    * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
    * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements 
    to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the 
    source code is also a precondition for this. 

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms.

Again, this is a matter of definition and as saints in the church of
emacs, this definition is from the fsf.

> Commercial development? 

There is nothing wrong with selling free software 

Commercial software is software being developed by a business which
aims to make money from a use of the software. Commercial and
proprietary software are not the same thing. Most commercial software
is proprietary, but there is commercial free software and there is
non-commercial non-free software

> it curtails much of that by forcing any proprietary changes to be
> made public

We don't want proprietary modifications and with the GPL, we ensure
this.

> and thus reduction in IP rights for any company that uses it.
> Again, while this goes against the FSF's mantra it *does*

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Please elaborate.

> curtail rights of future developers in forcing them to use a
> speciifc license for *their* code (ie modifications).  The original
> authors code would be as free as they choose to make it.

You're just repeating yourself and I'm doing the same in saying this
is what we want.

You may disagree, but I certainly see things this way. 

-- 
Esben Stien is b0ef at e     s      a             
         http://www. s     t    n m
          irc://irc.  b  -  i  .   e/%23contact
          [sip|iax]:   e     e 
           jid:b0ef@    n     n