[sldev] ESC exempt from open source and GPL licensing?

[Argent Stonecutter]

On 11-Nov-2007, at 01:15, Taran Rampersad wrote:

> Argent Stonecutter wrote:
>> On 10-Nov-2007, at 20:35, Taran Rampersad wrote:
>>> Software developers aren't lawyers and shouldn't have to be.  
>>> Saying that
>>> the code is GPL'd attracts developers who contribute in good faith.

>> The code is *open source*. If it matters to you so much whether it's
>> GPL or LGPL or BSDL or Microsoft Reciprocal License or Apache license
>> that you wouldn't contribute if it's not GPL with no ifs, ands, or
>> buts... then you're not speaking for the majority of developers.

> Are you?

Should I be? I didn't claim that the license I prefer should be given  
a privileged position. I didn't claim that it's the GPL that's  
attracting developers to the open source client. In fact, that's what  
I'm objecting to... the implication that LL is using the GPL because  
it attracts developers.

>> Personally, I'd rather they used a less restrictive license than  
>> the GPL.

> Ahh, well, you don't like the GPL. In effect, the code is shared  
> source

No, it's not. It's GPL dual license.

> which is something BSD-type license folks would go for.

Hardly. The problem with GPL dual license is that it gives one player  
(Linden Labs, Trolltech, Aladdin, ... this isn't something LL just  
came up with) a privileged position. In many ways it's less desirable  
than GPL, because it doesn't provide a level playing field. Here, of  
course, a level playing field is impossible so it doesn't matter...  
you should be a lot more concerned about Qt or Ghostscript.

> Its difficult to say that you're right or wrong when you generalize
> using 'most' and 'more'.

It's what I believe. Most developers don't care. Most developers I've  
corresponded with who've chosen the GPL for their own projects chose  
it because it was popular. Many of them didn't even know what the  
terms were. A couple hadn't ever released any source. As you say...  
software developers aren't lawyers. Boy, that's true.

You believe most developers do care, clearly, whether you explicitly  
used the term "most" or not.

> As someone who has written about these issues for about 7 years,

I released my first open source software around 1980. I've been doing  
this since before GNU was a twinkle in Stallman's eye. If the  
project's useful and the code is good, people will use it and  
contribute to it, no matter what the license is.