What is involved in an "Open Standard" truly being so?

[djgoku]

On Nov 15, 2007 1:25 AM, Nathan Cerny <ncerny at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2007 6:37 PM, djgoku <djgoku at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > GPL is Free of Charge, and open source. GPL is in no way _free_.
> >
>
> Actually, GPL isn't "Free of charge."  If you read the GPL, it clearly
> states that it is not necessarily free of charge, but it guarantees you the
> freedom to modify/use the software released under it however you wish
> (within the limitations set forth in the license that are needed to allow
> others the same freedom).
>
> "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our
> General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom
> to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish),
> that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can
> change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you
> know you can do these things."
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
>
>
> Sorry, it annoys me when people talk about "Free software" and make it sound
> like there is no charge, ever.

I don't know many GPL pay for programs, only one I can think of is
x-chat for windows.

It annoys me when people talk about GPL being _free_ when it is not.

<quote>
If you want to give your software away for free, use BSD. If you want
to share your software, use the GPL.

Software under the GPL is not free. Microsoft office is not free, you
have to pay Microsoft money. The Borland developer tools are not free,
you have to pay Borland (or whatever they're called these days).

Lastly, software released under the GPL is not free: if you choose to
copy and paste GPL code into your own program you have to share it.
This is how you pay for GPL code. This is a very egalitarian idea: I
share my code, and if you use it in your own program, you pay me back
by sharing your code or else you ask me to relicense the code under a
different license to suit your needs (which was always possible).

To make sure no-one can escape sharing (after all, this is how they're
paying to use the software), GPL v3 requires the following

(a) You make the source code available

(b) You don't use patents to prevent people from using your code,
which would effectively block code-sharing despite (a)

(c) You don't use DRM to prevent people from using your code, which
would effectively block code-sharing, like (a)


The GPL is no more viral than any commercial license, the only
difference is in how you pay to use the software. And it's always
worth remembering that you don't have to share until you distribute
the source-code (and as corporations are legal entities, you can give
a copy to all your 1000-odd co-workers without legally distributing
it). It's further worth remembering that if this is a problem, you can
always ask the original author to re-license their work under a
commercial license if you would rather not share.

This GPL is viral/evil/not-as-cool-as-BSD thing is rubbish. It does
what it sets out to do: encourage people to share code. There's no
excuse for "accidentally" using GPL code in your own software, just as
there's no excuse for "accidentally" installing a pirated copy of MS
Office on your friends PC. Both place value on software, and if you
choose to use it in a certain way, then you have to pay for them: the
only difference is in how you pay.

</quote>
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18174&comment_id=251777