Skip to main content.
home | support | download

Back to List Archive

Re: SWISH-E License

From: Roy Tennant <roy.tennant(at)not-real.ucop.edu>
Date: Thu May 22 2003 - 16:10:31 GMT
On Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 07:55 AM, moseley@hank.org wrote:

> So, it seems like anyone can use GPL Swish-e (binary or library) in 
> their
> own product without restriction, without forcing them to make their own
> product GPL'd and can charge for their product as they like.  But they
> cannot take it, claim it as their own, and as a result claim patent on 
> it
> preventing other from using it.  Seems reasonable.
>
I feel like I'm in a parallel universe...everything I've read on the 
GNU web site indicates that the main purpose of the GPL license is to 
force any other software that uses GPL'd software into open source. In 
fact, there's a rather lengthy discussion of this fact at 
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html>. Stallman even admits 
that one reason for going to LGPL is because there are other, competing 
applications in your domain space, so using such a restrictive license 
(as GPL) would be counter-productive (since it would discourage use). 
This doesn't mean it must be GPL'd, but IT MUST be open source. That 
seems like a fairly major restriction to me, so I don't know how you 
can say "without restriction". And to be clear, this is MY 
interpretation, not Ballmer's or anyone else. But having said this, 
since I have not written a single line of code, you who have done the 
real work just tell me what to do and I'll do it. So I'll shut up now 
and let those who have written the code come to consensus, if that is 
possible.
Roy
Received on Thu May 22 16:10:40 2003