[svlug] RANT: Ubuntu is Evil

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Sun Jan 17 15:49:04 PST 2010


Quoting Chris Miller (lordsauronthegreat at gmail.com):
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'll send you $50 if you can cite to me any codebase licensed under
> >> GPLv2 or GPLv3 (or any combination thereof) that I am not permitted
> >> to use in commerce _or_ am not permitted to sell to others.
> >
> > ...where that inability is on grounds of the licensing.  (Telling me
> > about one where that deficiency is caused by, say, a patent problem
> > doesn't qualify.)
> 
> The provisions that all software must use the GPL or a "compatible"
> license is a major blocker.

I note in passing that you carefully ignored where I called bullshit on
your assertion about a "whole anti-commercial use thing" inherent in GNU
GPL.  The reason you did is that, obviously, you _cannot_ cite any GPLed
codebase I am not permitted to use in commerce, or am forbidden to sell
to others (on account of licensing), is that none exist -- and none ever
will.  

Anyone who actually reads and understands GNU GPL knows that it
actually _guarantees_ the right of use in commerce of covered works.
What it doesn't permit is proprietising.

And proprietising _what_?  Proprietising somebody -=else's=- copyrighted
creation, from someone who elected to release to the public an instance
of that creation under some version of GNU GPL.

And thus my point:

As with all other software licensing, there are at least two obvious,
ethical, and reasonable alternative for anyone who doesn't like the
terms that person offers for the use of his or her property:  (1) You
can offer that person money for rights he or she isn't offering you for
free, i.e., get a code instance under terms that permit you to
proprietise.  (2) You can STFU, avoid using what has been generously
offered to you by that person by the sweat of his or her brow, and go
find or code something you like better.

That is why I reminded you that choice of software licence is a relevant
and important issue to _those who write code_.  If you're the
programmer, choice of licence is your business.  If you're not, then
bitching about someone else's treatment of his or her _own property_
makes you look both extremely silly and ungrateful, to boot.

I believe the above should remedy your understanding of reciprocal
software licensing up to, say, 1989 standards at least.

And, by all means, feel extremely welcome to switch everything you run
over to NetBSD without an instant's delay.  Please do so, in fact.
(And, if you find, say, the reciprocal obligations in most of NetBSD's
Web browsers and HTTP daemons onerous, you may need to write your own
from scratch.)

But beware of packages compiled using GCC.  It has GPL cooties.

Have fun.  Write if you get work.






More information about the svlug mailing list