Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning
From: Tim <tim-security () sentinelchicken org>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 07:06:50 -0800
The copanies aren't the thing. The people are the thing. This isn't corporate america, it is open source.Exactly why I think the GPL needs to address issues like this. I've no problem with a commercial entity using my code, or even incorporating it into their own software...but if you're going to make a profit off of merely redistributing someone else's work, or if your product is basically someone else's work with a little wrapper around it, the author should benefit.
But the author does benefit through increased distribution of code. And, if that little wrapper is an improvement, then it must be distributed as code. From that, the author may benefit as well. As an author, you can release your code under whatever you want. 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? So does copyrighting software that is only distributed in binary form. It goes against the spirit of copyright that the founders of the US laid out. Information can be copyrighted for a period of time, after which, it falls into the public domain. It is an author's sole right to copy that work until the time that it goes into the public domain. What if by the time the work goes into the public domain, I am no longer living and my company is no longer in business? The public just lost rights to that information. 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? Basically, our current copyright laws are f**ked, and need to be fixed. Until then we have things like the GPL, that are based on copyright, and contain the original spirit of it.
Bottom line, open source licensing is designed to protect the author and benefit the community - and the GPL isn't doing a very good job at that now that redistribution is commercialized.
What are you talking about? The whole point is that you can ALWAYS obtain the non-commercial version. Even if RedHat only "supports" an expensive commercial version, they still have to release any code that is part of GPLed works. And in general the commercial enterprises have done a LOT to make the code more palatable, but they haven't done it at the price of open-ness. The authors are protected: their code is still public, as they intended, and no one can make money out of it without contributing something. Sure, I can take your source verbatim and sell it on the open market. But how many people are going to buy it if it hasn't been improved at all? Just the stupid ones. So, based on the sales prices of a lot of this software, they must be adding some significant value somewhere along the line. Have you even read the GPL? Have you seen the companies (Ximian, for one) that have released their own works under it, yet have managed to keep a business running at the same time? Honestly, your comments seem very short-sighted and unimaginitive. No one is "stealing" our code man... They are merely sharing it. You almost sound like the RIAA... tim _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Re: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning, (continued)
- Re: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 04)
- Re: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning Shawn McMahon (Nov 04)
- Re: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning |reduced|minus|none| (Nov 04)
- Re: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning Ron DuFresne (Nov 04)
- Re: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning Shawn McMahon (Nov 04)
- Re: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning Ron DuFresne (Nov 04)
- Re: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning Shawn McMahon (Nov 04)
- Re: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning Paul Schmehl (Nov 03)
- Re: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning Tim (Nov 03)
- Re: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning Jonathan A. Zdziarski (Nov 04)
- Re: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning Tim (Nov 04)
- Re: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning Jonathan A. Zdziarski (Nov 04)
- Re: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning Rui Miguel Seabra (Nov 04)
- Re: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning Jonathan A. Zdziarski (Nov 04)
- Re: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning Tomasz Konefal (Nov 04)
- Re: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning Kenton Smith (Nov 04)
- Re: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning Vincent (Nov 04)
- Re: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life ...and SuSe, and the rest. Daniele Muscetta (Nov 04)
- Re: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life ...and SuSe, and the rest. Jonathan A. Zdziarski (Nov 04)