[PD] rjdj is gone, robotcowboy is coming ...
jancsika at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 3 05:22:41 CET 2012
----- Original Message -----
> From: Simon Wise <simonzwise at gmail.com>
> To: pd-list at iem.at
> Sent: Friday, November 2, 2012 10:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [PD] rjdj is gone, robotcowboy is coming ...
> Any copyleft license that restricts use of the code to open source projects only
> by requiring the distributor to provide the source code is 'unsafe'.
The GPL doesn't restrict use of the software to open source projects. It doesn't
restrict use in any way whatsoever-- that's Freedom 0. However, it does restrict
anyone from adding restrictions to the license, which not only covers use but
also distribution of the original or amended source code. Apple's App Store
puts a restriction use (at least the last time I looked at
it); only allowing the binary to be run on $n devices conflicts with Freedom 0.
 For example, Google's software stack that powers their search could
all be GPL and Google would be under no obligation to reveal the source
code. They are running it on their machines and are entitled to Freedom 0,
the freedom to run the program for any purpose. But the Four Freedoms of the
GPL spell out freedoms that the user is free to make use of _if_ they wish--
they are under no obligation to exercise any of them. So, if Google decides
not to distribute their hypothetically GPL'd software and only let's you access
their service through their website (or whatever), then you've never actually
received a copy of the program and therefore aren't entitled to any of the
freedoms outlined in the GPL. (This, btw, is a great example of the reason
the FSF talks about freedom instead of access to source code. An open
source advocate concerned only with the technical merits of open development
must admit that Google's centralized approach blows every decentralized
open source alternative out of the water, and I'm not sure how exactly they
would find anything to criticize. Meanwhile, the free software user
will immediately realize they are missing all four freedoms when they use
the service and hopefully realize the privacy implications of Google being
the only entity that has Freedom 0 (actually regardless of the license
since it's their software run on their machines and they aren't selling it to
> is unacceptable to Apple and will not fit in their App Store.
> I believe most GPL code is intentionally copyleft, the (original) developers
> actively did not want to give it away for use in closed source projects.
> Many are willing to sell their code to closed source projects with a different
> license, but of course each contributor must agree to the license given to Apple
> and many would want to be given a reasonable share of that 70% in exchange for
> the use of that code. If that 70% is actually $0 then they must be willing to
> allow closed source, DRM locked redistribution of their code without payment.
> That may well conflict with their own business model, they may consider this
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
More information about the Pd-list