Re: pascal system

["mdj" <mdj.mdj@gmail.com>]

Andy McFadden wrote:

> On more than one occasion, I have heard the words: it's GPLed, we can't
> use it.

It's worth noting that the GPL conditions only apply on something you
want to distribute. For in house stuff, it's fine.

> If software like zlib had been released under the GPL, it would not have
> the level of adoption that it does today.  Some products, like FreeType,
> allow you to choose a license (it allows GPL or a non-GPL-compatible BSD
> variant).

Indeed. The LGPL is much better for such libraries, and means that if
somebody improves zlib in the process of using it, that the
improvements will end up back in the zlib code tree. This is my main
gripe with BSD licenses. People take without giving back far too often.

> I think some people choose the GPL because they don't like the idea that a
> company somewhere could be using their product to make money without paying
> them, or using their code as a stepping-stone without giving anything back.
> My experiences suggest that the company isn't going to pay you or give
> anything back either way, so really it's a question of whether or not you
> want your code to be used.  The only exceptions are for products of
> significant complexity, such as the Linux kernel.

For me it's not a question of money, but a question of ethos. If I
develop a program and distribute it, then somebody else modifies it and
keeps their modifications to themselves  (regardless of reasoning) I
personally think well, tough, if you want to benefit from keeping  your
code proprietary, then I see no reason why you should benefit from my
work when I chose not to. Certainly though, there is a lot of
contention with the Open Source world over this point. Why, the very
term "Open Source" is an invention of the "BSD" crowd to promote a more
corporate friendly image, as compared to the "Free Software" world
which is essentially synonymous with the GPL.

The Linux kernel is a great example of the usefulness of the GPL - it's
probably the only reason that the various commercial releases haven't
fractured into incompatible proprietary extensions just as the
commercial UNIX's it's replacing did.

In an ideal world, you wouldn't need a GPL at all, but the world is far
from ideal, so I think it's better to err on the side of caution and if
you want something to be free, make the licensing reflect your wishes.
You can always relicense it later if it proves to be an issue.

Matt