Re: [circle] GPL Violation - no I wont

[David Irvine]

Hi
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 19:40 +1100, Jiri Baum wrote:
> Hello,
>
> David Irvine:
> > > > Real innovation will require commercialisation to an extent from time
> > > > to time
>
> Jiri:
> > > Cite?
>
> David Irvine:
> > Well I am Scottish and many things have come from here
>
> [snip list of examples]
>
> Ah, so nothing actually to do with software (or even similar fields). I'm not 
> saying software is unique, but it certainly does seem to have significant 
> differences from, say, the invention of television.
Some actual software examples would be
Lisp , speech processing (Festival) - uni projects - created in an environment  that's paid
data compression on Internet connections (can't remember the name) - commercial - always will be - great shame    

I can see no difference with software innovation and any other kind in that it's all innovation.
> > Then I put  it back to you to tell me of software innovation where people
> > can be focused on it full time, create a new concept (has to be a good one
> > though) and survive whilst doing it. 
>
> If you can find such a mechanism, that'd be great. So far, you haven't even 
> proposed one, much less argued that it would, in fact, have these features.
It's exactly what I am talking about - a mechanism where a system can be created and paid. Some way a license or whatever can not stifle innovation - I argue the GPL does as well as closed proprietary licenses. 
> Meanwhile, we'll continue to use the best of the known approaches, which would 
> be the one based on the GPL.
Really how does the GPL help innovation more than say bsd which allows use of code in almost any situation. The GPL does this for apparent good reasons and that's to keep products free at the cost (in my opinion) of innovation.

A fix if I am forced into giving one would be a time limited one - create a system (using an allowed % of gpl code say 40% - could be 80%) commercially (maybe even closed). From release date for a period of 12 months (say) its legal to sell it and do as you wish with the proceeds, however after that period all your code is gpl and no secrets allowed.

That would work very well and it's the kind of thing I was hoping to hear. 

 

> > I really feel there is a case for allowing this in a properly run society
> > (which is what OSS is attempting to do) 
>
> Umm, no.
>
> OSS has no interest in whether society is properly run or otherwise. OSS is a 
> pragmatic method of producing software.
Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit corporation dedicated to managing and promoting the Open Source Definition for the good of the community
> A properly run society is the goal of the Free Software movement, which you 
> deride.
I don't that's the issue, I do critisise it when required to improve it. Given a choice it's my favorite model for improving and extending ideas between peers. 
> Jiri
David

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part