Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean

[amicus_curious]

"Thufir Hawat" <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:FuDBl.727$9t6.528@newsfe10.iad...
> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>
> >  "Free Software" is highly restrictive software and isn't
> > "free" at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed
> > programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal
> > court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software
> > licensing as a religion.
>
> Why not extend that argument to the conclusion:  don't use any license at
> all.  Sqlite is public domain.  You're free to develop public domain
> software on your own.  However, you're not likely to ever see a penny for
> your efforts.
That is exactly correct.  I think that is the essence of open source. 
Anyone who needs a basic function in their own application should be free to 
adopt one freely handed out by someone else.  Since it is freely 
distributed, there is absolutely no obligation.  Anyone so proud of their 
incremental innovation that improves the original that they want to brag to 
the world is also free to publish their dependent work.  Anyone who doesn't 
see the value in such a publication or who hasn't made any such change would 
naturally refrain from any disclosure.

The internet is full of sites and included articles describing this very 
kind of software and many developers have taken advantage of such articles 
to solve their own problems and to learn how to do a variety of things. 
There seems to be enough disclosure by those who learn a little so as to 
keep the ball rolling.

All this makes Stallman and the FSF appear to be a sort of dog in the 
manger, denying access to those who might avail themselves of some learning 
or avoid some rote efforts.  I do not think that anyone who included any 
such GPL solftware into their product could make any money from the effort 
either, just as they could not from public domain software.  There is 
nothing that anyone trying to sell a product rather than give it away could 
sell other than their own innovation since the original functionality is 
still available to anyone at no charge.  If I stole the code for FireFox and 
used it unchanged in a new product that I called HoundDog, I would never 
recover my costs of promoting it via license fees.  I doubt that I would 
ever sell a single copy.  If I added some functions that made it more 
valuable and likely to appeal to consumers, however, I could possibly 
benefit, but, again, it is doubtful that anyone could really innovate 
anything in this realm.