bofh at stremler.net
Sun Nov 8 01:16:08 PST 2009
begin quoting chris at seberino.org as of Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 04:18:21PM -0800:
> On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 10:03:07PM +0000, SJS wrote:
> > you don't have to give M$ distribution rights
> > to your code.
> > I'd rather argue with my customer that they *ought* to give
> > something back to the community (once development costs have
> > been covered) than to tell them they'e going to be *forced* to
> > give something back to the community.
> Doesn't one's definition of extreme behavior depend on one's definition of
> reasonable behavior?
One can argue that the most reasonable behavior is an extreme one.
This may or may not be the case, but it's a valid position.
The inverse of extreme is 'moderate', not 'reasonable'.
> Our current system gives creators strong monopoly rights over distribution.
No, it gives them a *limited* monopoly.
> If one things the current system is reasonable, then anything that goes against
> that is unreasonable.
No. There may be other, reasonable, approaches.
There may even be other moderate approaches.
That is not to say that all other approaches are moderate,
or reasonable, or even something short of batshit crazy.
> I've heard it explained that the current system is what is
Yah, I've heard a lot of that too. Generally, the 'explanation'
isn't very convincing.
> If one believes that, then the GPL is what is "reasonable".
No. One could also believe that the current system is unreasonable,
in that the granted monopoly is too limited.
So when will GPL software start entering the public domain?
More information about the KPLUG-List