Re: [TCLUG:17728] Motif has gone opensource!

[Luke Francl <fran0382@tc.umn.edu>]

On Tue, 16 May 2000, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> > ...I *like* having the guarantee that *no one* can take away that
> > program from me, ever. ...
> 
> It isn't yours if it is GPL.  Once GPL - anybody can extend it - and
> essentially steal the project from you.  Look at egcs and how it took gcc
> away from GNU.  It was eventually reincorporated though after a war of wits.

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I just don't buy this. The GPL requires the
source code to be given to everyone (to address a common BSD criticism,
it's the code that is free, not you. This is the meaning of Free Software.).

You can't take source code away from anyone, ever, if it's GPL'd. This is
one one of the reasons, historically, for Linux's rise over BSD. To quote
"The Free Software Project" by Andrew Leonard
(http://www.salon.com/tech/fsp/index.html):

	No one knew if AT&T would succeed in quashing BSD
	altogether. Linux, in combination with the GNU utilities, was
	protected by the ironclad GNU General Public License -- all the
	code was free and always would be free.

> Same goes for BSD except that the source doesn't have to stay open.

That's the problem, as I see it, with BSD. 

In the end though, I think we must agree, there is no one "right" license.
I favor the GPL, and I will use it whenever I have a chance. That wouldn't
stop me from contributing or starting a BSD licensed project though. It
just depends on your motivations. If I had a company which hoped to sell
the code (and not just support), I'd certainly do BSD. But you see, I'm
one of those fanatics who think that all software should be Free with a
capital "F"...so, until copyright is dead, I'll do GPL whenever I can.

I didn't really mean to start a license war here; I just wanted to point
out I think making new licenses is *stupid* and *wasteful*. 

Luke