Comment Re:What a tangled web we weave... (Score 1) 349
I use 'free' software all the time. When I'm working on my unix machines, I generally try to use community available tools for several reasons: because they're free, a lot of people already are using them, so it makes compatibility easier. I don't like to spend money on licenses, etc. because I usually have to wait for that stuff to get approved by the boss, and it's a pain. I have no problem agreeing to the GPL most of the time.
Unfortunately, this has the negative impact of me having a problem that I need to fix, and "Oh yeah, that library has some good functions and routines" but the GPL sez that now I must distribute the source for everything I do that hinges on those functions. Well, I can't do that. SO I have two choices: steal it or write my own. I don't generally have the luxury of time to develop my own set of libraries. Not only is it a waste of time, but I just won't do it. Chances are, I will creatively 'paraphrase' what I need from GPL source, or read the code and then come up with a way to do it. I will concede that the first case is rapidly appraoching theft, the second, hey, you can't prove a thing.
The GPL is a good thing, and so is the Berkeley license actually. I think that having open source stuff has had a great impact on the way we do computing today.
However, I do reserve the right to protect my property, and if that means using a restrictive license then so be it. That's the world in which I work, and those are the systems and products that I have to build.
IMHO, I believe in the spirit of the FSF but I also understand that there is an ideological component that I can't agree with, which is the derivative works thing. That's pretty nebulous. In the 90's it's hard to find something that isn't a 'derivative' work. I also shouldn't have to release my company's competitive advantages over a few header files.
The Free Software Foundation is a very 'ivory tower' kind of organization, and the price for their ideals is that they are not always workable in the real world.
Personally, I feel that this is just another religious war regarding technology. To make the argument that Free Software = Free Speech = Freedom in General is just way too simple, I hope we know that.
Unfortunately, this has the negative impact of me having a problem that I need to fix, and "Oh yeah, that library has some good functions and routines" but the GPL sez that now I must distribute the source for everything I do that hinges on those functions. Well, I can't do that. SO I have two choices: steal it or write my own. I don't generally have the luxury of time to develop my own set of libraries. Not only is it a waste of time, but I just won't do it. Chances are, I will creatively 'paraphrase' what I need from GPL source, or read the code and then come up with a way to do it. I will concede that the first case is rapidly appraoching theft, the second, hey, you can't prove a thing.
The GPL is a good thing, and so is the Berkeley license actually. I think that having open source stuff has had a great impact on the way we do computing today.
However, I do reserve the right to protect my property, and if that means using a restrictive license then so be it. That's the world in which I work, and those are the systems and products that I have to build.
IMHO, I believe in the spirit of the FSF but I also understand that there is an ideological component that I can't agree with, which is the derivative works thing. That's pretty nebulous. In the 90's it's hard to find something that isn't a 'derivative' work. I also shouldn't have to release my company's competitive advantages over a few header files.
The Free Software Foundation is a very 'ivory tower' kind of organization, and the price for their ideals is that they are not always workable in the real world.
Personally, I feel that this is just another religious war regarding technology. To make the argument that Free Software = Free Speech = Freedom in General is just way too simple, I hope we know that.
