Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications

On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:10 +0100, Marek wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2008 3:57 PM, Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> > On Sunday 27 January 2008 23:57:27 Marek wrote:
> >
> > > What does that matter? You mean someone should pay me for this?
> >
> > I'll pay you to shut up about the GPL...
> >
> > Seriously, you don't appear to understand what you're talking about. You keep
> > making the same nonsensical point over and over again.
>
> Would be so kind and write thorough analysis which would show the
> *all* of my claims as untrue or unjustified? Please GO AHEAD.

How's this one:

> No. GPL doesn't include any compensation mechanism at all. It
> implicitly prohibits from using the program licensed under the terms
> of GPLfor any commercial purpose other than charging for distribution.

After a few people pointed out how obviously and completely wrong this
is, now you're talking about how companies can, in fact, use GPL
software for commercial purposes:

> If people interpreting the GPL in the woodstock sense of way, will
> eventually stop doing it, and start looking for solutions in order to
> squeeze some revenue out of their open source work,
> they will eventually start seeking for a different license.

So now you're saying the GPL does not prohibit commercial use. You
disagree with this, however:

> Every single developer can choose
> another license, seek legal advice in order to do so, or in order to
> write a new one, etc. With the GPL, you don't have to deal with such
> things, since it's a defacto standard.

So, to summarize:

- The GPL doesn't force commercial users to pay the developer (it
doesn't do so because that would not even remotely be a Free Software
license, but that's another discussion).

- You do not like this fact (why I don't know, since you don't develop
anything of worth, and developers who do are arguing against you on this
very point...)

- Therefore it would be nice if the GPL meant <what you want it to mean>
because then there would be only one license.

Well, I am not a lawyer, but I do know this: just because you /want/
the GPL to mean something, doesn't mean it does. You can't invent a
crazy interpretation of the GPL (seemingly not based on the actual text
of the license itself, no less) and then pretend that is what the
license says.

I'm quite sure the real, actual, lawyers who the FSF has had pour over
the GPL - literally right down to the meaning of each individual word -
know what it means more than you do. The actual interpretation of the
GPL hasn't changed in well over a decade, yours did in the past 2 days.

The point of the GPL, as you say, is that we all understand what it
says, because it's so ubiquitous (same goes for BSD, etc). You are
doing nothing but trying to destroy this common understanding by
claiming the GPL means ridiculous things it most certainly doesn't.
Please stop, or at least READ the thing before discussing it's
interpretation.

As far as the commercial use 'issues', there is plenty of information on
the FSF site and elsewhere why allowing commercial use is a good thing
for Free Software. Developers who license software under the GPL are
happy to have commercial users, as long as they contribute changes back
to the community (that's the point of the license).

You seem to have forgotten that the GPL is not about money. You are
free to go and create a license that is, but don't pretend the GPL is
something is explicitly is not.

Good enough analysis for you?

-DR-

P.S. Learn first, lecture second. Not the other way around.

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Wed Jan 30 20:15:25 2008