Re: [Full-Disclosure] Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning

From: Jonathan A. Zdziarski (
Date: 11/04/03

  • Next message: Nicob: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update andtransition planning"
    To: Tim <>
    Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 10:11:12 -0500

    > But the author does benefit through increased distribution of code.

    Wow. And the distributor benefits through increased profit.

    > And, if that little wrapper is an improvement, then it must be
    > distributed as code. From that, the author may benefit as well.

    Let the author of the wrapper distribute their wrapper without the app
    if they're making a profit on it...or work something out with the

    > As an author, you can release your code under whatever you want.

    True, but if you have a proprietary license instead of a standardized
    license, it's unlikely that commercial organizations will touch it (even
    the ones you want to).

    > 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?

    I agree all code should be kept open...but I shouldn't be able to
    download someone else's book online and then sell it, now should I?

    > 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?

    I agree...I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with the
    open-source aspect of the GPL, only in its licensing for redistribution.

    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.

  • Next message: Nicob: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update andtransition planning"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: [opensuse] Linus loves GPL v2 ---- and is not on a crusade
      ... might consider that the difference (freedom) is still worth fighting "for". ... Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. ... The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the ... software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing ...
    • Re: scope of linux in the corporates...
      ... creating a derivative work, and distribution. ... "The license does not require anyone to accept it in order to ... The GPL only obliges you ... Copying without distributing is simply *using* the program. ...
    • Re: To all except Torgeir Bakken
      ... stop DRM from killing your "protected" material when changing PCs etc. ... " The license acquisition process allows companies to gather targeted ... many music distribution Web sites ... Yep; goobye privacy, hullo spam. ...
    • Re: Vending
      ... > reference the MIT license when talking about the BSD license because ... Distributing your modify product as FreeBSD is not ok, ... To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid ... DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION ...
    • GPLv3 dispute solution - new open source license?
      ... I like to refer to the idea as Copyup, because the license gives ... This document describes the terms and conditions of the distribution ... You may distribution copies of the program freely, with or without a fee, ... source code alongside the binary executables is not necessary, ...