[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ruby-talk
Subject:    Re: GUI With Ruby
From:       Chad Perrin <perrin () apotheon ! com>
Date:       2007-03-13 3:00:32
Message-ID: 20070313025952.GB11892 () apotheon ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:31:23AM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:
> On 3/11/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> 
> >On the other hand, I am *more*
> >concerned that the *forced distribution of source code* mandated by the
> >GPL is actually more restrictive in practice.  For one thing, it
> >prevents anyone that didn't have the foresight to get the source at the
> >same time as the binaries from redistributing the binaries in his or her
> >possession, unless he or she can still find the source.
> 
> The more I think about this though, I'm not sure I want someone's
> binaries without the source.  The thrust of the FSF and for that
> matter the open source movement is *open source*, not gratis
> distribution of binary software.  Having the source available with the
> binaries also provides for at least a minimal audit trail to the
> licensing terms of those binaries.  If you just download the binaries,
> and you can't tie them to source, how to you as a user show that you
> have a license to the software?

How do you feel about people having a (legally protected) right to
distribute Linux LiveCDs without having to push several CDs full of
source code on the recipients at the same time?

There's a difference between downloading software with the source
available, then later finding that the source for that exact version of
the binary went away, and downloading software when no source is
available.  I don't believe that conflating the two situations helps
clear up the legal ramifications of the situation at all.


> 
> The real selling proposition of open-source is that it provides better
> protection to the person or organization using the software that it
> will continue to be available and maintainable.  If only the binaries
> are available, due either to neglect by or the future absense of the
> distributor, this advantage is lost.  Witness the recent suggestions
> for a 'living will' for the owner of an open source project, it's
> motivated by the same idea which is to keep the project alive past the
> disinterest or the demise of the originators.

In practice, the source of BSD-licensed software is as easily available
as the source of GPLed software, generally speaking.  If the source
disappears, however, you now can't do anything with the binary at all,
except continue to use it -- and, at that point, you have to ensure you
don't accidentally "distribute" it sans source.  That's my point.


> 
> >For another, it
> >requires, in many cases, for those with limited resources to choose
> >between maintaining an archive of source code with redundant backups for
> >several years after distributing binaries, or simply not distributing.
> 
> Or distributing through a larger entity such as, say, rubyforge or 
> sourceforge.

True -- but if that's the option you choose, you have to stick to it,
and you then entrust some of your data security to someone else.
Sometimes that's an option.  Sometimes it's not -- such as when running
package archives for a small community Linux distribution, or even just
for your friends.


> 
> >I definitely prefer the BSD license.  It would be better to have access
> >to a binary with no source than neither (to compare worst-case
> >scenarios).
> 
> Well, you can get lots of that kind of software from organizations
> like Microsoft. <G>

Notice, I don't like worst-case scenario conditions.  As such, I happily
use the FreeBSD archives.  See how well that works?


> 
> >Of course, I find both annoyingly limited in applicability to a single
> >form of copyrightable work, and the BSD license's applicability to
> >derivative works is ambiguous.  I still prefer the BSD license over the
> >GPL, especially considering recent examples of the FSF threatening legal
> >action against small community Linux distributions for debatable
> >violations of GPL terms.
> 
> Or one could view it as a wake-up call that keeping open-source open
> requires distributing open source.

A social revolution loses some ethical purity when enforced at the point
of a gun -- and that's what the law is: a gun to one's head.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
unix virus: If you're using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]