Message-ID: <20031104150650.GB1208@sentinelchicken.org>
From: tim-security at sentinelchicken.org (Tim)
Subject: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning

> > The copanies aren't the thing.  The people are the thing.  This isn't
> > corporate america, it is open source.
> 
> Exactly why I think the GPL needs to address issues like this.  I've no
> problem with a commercial entity using my code, or even incorporating it
> into their own software...but if you're going to make a profit off of
> merely redistributing someone else's work, or if your product is
> basically someone else's work with a little wrapper around it, the
> author should benefit.

But the author does benefit through increased distribution of code.
And, if that little wrapper is an improvement, then it must be
distributed as code.  From that, the author may benefit as well.

As an author, you can release your code under whatever you want.  The
whole point of the GPL is to keep code open now, AND in the future.  If
you want that, then it is perfect for you.  In fact, it is almost the
embodiment of the spirit of original Copyright.  Have you ever been
given a book that allows you to know what was in it, but doesn't show
you the words?  Sound rediculous?  So does copyrighting software that is
only distributed in binary form.  It goes against the spirit of
copyright that the founders of the US laid out.  Information can be
copyrighted for a period of time, after which, it falls into the public
domain.  It is an author's sole right to copy that work until the time
that it goes into the public domain.  What if by the time the work goes
into the public domain, I am no longer living and my company is no
longer in business?  The public just lost rights to that information.

And how the hell am I supposed to enforce my copyright on other
companies if the code they write, under copyright, is only released as
binaries? 

Basically, our current copyright laws are f**ked, and need to be fixed.
Until then we have things like the GPL, that are based on copyright, and
contain the original spirit of it.


> Bottom line, open source licensing is designed
> to protect the author and benefit the community - and the GPL isn't
> doing a very good job at that now that redistribution is commercialized.

What are you talking about?  The whole point is that you can ALWAYS
obtain the non-commercial version.  Even if RedHat only "supports" an
expensive commercial version, they still have to release any code that
is part of GPLed works.  And in general the commercial enterprises have
done a LOT to make the code more palatable, but they haven't done it at
the price of open-ness.  The authors are protected: their code is still
public, as they intended, and no one can make money out of it without 
contributing something.  Sure, I can take your source verbatim and sell
it on the open market.  But how many people are going to buy it if it
hasn't been improved at all?  Just the stupid ones.  So, based on the
sales prices of a lot of this software, they must be adding some
significant value somewhere along the line.  

Have you even read the GPL?  Have you seen the companies (Ximian, for
one) that have released their own works under it, yet have managed to
keep a business running at the same time?  Honestly, your comments seem
very short-sighted and unimaginitive.  No one is "stealing" our code
man...  They are merely sharing it.  You almost sound like the RIAA...

tim

Powered by blists - more mailing lists