----- Original Message -----
From: Simon Wise simonzwise@gmail.com To: pd-list@iem.at Cc: Sent: Friday, November 2, 2012 10:05 PM Subject: Re: [PD] rjdj is gone, robotcowboy is coming ...
[...]
Any copyleft license that restricts use of the code to open source projects only by requiring the distributor to provide the source code is 'unsafe'.
The GPL doesn't restrict use of the software to open source projects[1]. It doesn't restrict use in any way whatsoever-- that's Freedom 0. However, it does restrict anyone from adding restrictions to the license, which not only covers use but also distribution of the original or amended source code. Apple's App Store puts a restriction use (at least the last time I looked at it); only allowing the binary to be run on $n devices conflicts with Freedom 0.
-Jonathan
[1] For example, Google's software stack that powers their search could all be GPL and Google would be under no obligation to reveal the source code. They are running it on their machines and are entitled to Freedom 0, the freedom to run the program for any purpose. But the Four Freedoms of the GPL spell out freedoms that the user is free to make use of _if_ they wish-- they are under no obligation to exercise any of them. So, if Google decides not to distribute their hypothetically GPL'd software and only let's you access their service through their website (or whatever), then you've never actually received a copy of the program and therefore aren't entitled to any of the freedoms outlined in the GPL. (This, btw, is a great example of the reason the FSF talks about freedom instead of access to source code. An open source advocate concerned only with the technical merits of open development must admit that Google's centralized approach blows every decentralized open source alternative out of the water, and I'm not sure how exactly they would find anything to criticize. Meanwhile, the free software user will immediately realize they are missing all four freedoms when they use the service and hopefully realize the privacy implications of Google being the only entity that has Freedom 0 (actually regardless of the license since it's their software run on their machines and they aren't selling it to anyone).
It is unacceptable to Apple and will not fit in their App Store.
I believe most GPL code is intentionally copyleft, the (original) developers actively did not want to give it away for use in closed source projects.
Many are willing to sell their code to closed source projects with a different license, but of course each contributor must agree to the license given to Apple and many would want to be given a reasonable share of that 70% in exchange for the use of that code. If that 70% is actually $0 then they must be willing to allow closed source, DRM locked redistribution of their code without payment. That may well conflict with their own business model, they may consider this 'unsafe'.
Simon
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list