GPL Upheld in Court in Germany!

[Newby]

http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/09/24/1252212

.

[Warrior]

GPL: 1 Freedom: 0

[iago]

GPL: 1 Freedom: 0

In a sense, the GPL helped to protect the freedom.  It's the freedom of other developers to use the code that was modified by the company.  And that's the type of freedom that the GPL protects. 

[Warrior]

I don't get why you should be free to use the code I WRITE. If you want to free YOUR CODE it's YOUR CHOICE but don't cry to me when I don't do the same favor.

It's the stupidest way to spread open source, people shouldn't be FORCED they should just want to.

[Sidoh]

I don't get why you should be free to use the code I WRITE. If you want to free YOUR CODE it's YOUR CHOICE but don't cry to me when I don't do the same favor.

It's the stupidest way to spread open source, people shouldn't be FORCED they should just want to.

Unfortunately, there are far too many greedy people to make this a feasible solution to spread open source.

If someone releases code, they should have every right to dictate the legalities behind it.  If they want to allow people to use it, but for it to be advertized in the same way in other derivatives, that's fine.  If people don't like that, then they shouldn't use the code.

[iago]

I don't get why you should be free to use the code I WRITE. If you want to free YOUR CODE it's YOUR CHOICE but don't cry to me when I don't do the same favor.

What you're saying doesn't apply here.  Because the code wasn't "YOUR CODE" or "MY CODE", rather, it was a combination of at least two different forces, the first of whom put limitations on how his code was to be used.  If the code was all done by a single person, then sure, he can control how his code is used.  But it wasn't, it was written by two people, so there's no single "MY CODE" or "YOUR CODE". 

So it comes down to two choices as to who gets control of the code:
A) Does the original developer get to control how he uses his code?
B) Does the new developer get to control how he uses the other person's code?

With GPL, they've chosen A).  The developer has decided that he wants limitations on how his own code is used.  Why isn't the developer allowed to add those controls?

[Sidoh]

With GPL, they've chosen A).  The developer has decided that he wants limitations on how his own code is used.  Why isn't the developer allowed to add those controls?

Yeah!

It seems very oxymoronical to call GPL stupid because it doesn't allow you to do what you want with your code.  If you look a generation above, the developer did exactly what he wanted with his code: allowed its use under the GPL!

[Warrior]

I'm all for the developer dictating how his code should be used, but when it reaches an extreme as to force a user to open source the code they modify it gets a little out of hand.

If it were something like, use those products for non profit purposes it would seem more fitting but to me this seems like another way to spread open source. It's almost like the same thing people condemn Microsoft for doing. Forcing people to use their stuff. Microsoft does it through vendor lockins and EEE and Open source does it through GPL.

[Sidoh]

I'm all for the developer dictating how his code should be used, but when it reaches an extreme as to force a user to open source the code they modify it gets a little out of hand.

If it were something like, use those products for non profit purposes it would seem more fitting but to me this seems like another way to spread open source. It's almost like the same thing people condemn Microsoft for doing. Forcing people to use their stuff. Microsoft does it through vendor lockins and EEE and Open source does it through GPL.

The user doesn't have to use the code, though.  It's pretty rare that an idea is so profound that you can't just write your own code to do it, using some open source code as a reference if you get stuck.

There's nothing vague or tricky about it; it is a way to spread open source.  I don't think that anyone is denying that.  They're not forcing people to use anything.  They're forcing them to obey the licence that they applied to their code, which every developer should have the right to do.  The government does the same thing with laws.  "You may drive your car as long as you obey the traffic laws and it is legal for you to drive at the time you decide to get in your car."  If you don't agree with the speed limit and refuse to abide by it, you can either risk getting caught while breaking the law and suffering the consequences or you can choose to not drive your car.

The people who believe in open source should have every right to licence their code under something like the GPL.  If you don't agree with the licence or you don't want to comply with some little thing it forces you to do, then don't use the code!  It's that simple.

[Warrior]

I'm all for the developer dictating how his code should be used, but when it reaches an extreme as to force a user to open source the code they modify it gets a little out of hand.

If it were something like, use those products for non profit purposes it would seem more fitting but to me this seems like another way to spread open source. It's almost like the same thing people condemn Microsoft for doing. Forcing people to use their stuff. Microsoft does it through vendor lockins and EEE and Open source does it through GPL.

The user doesn't have to use the code, though.  It's pretty rare that an idea is so profound that you can't just write your own code to do it, using some open source code as a reference if you get stuck.

Yea that's true, it usually ends up better as well.

There's nothing vague or tricky about it; it is a way to spread open source.  I don't think that anyone is denying that.  They're not forcing people to use anything.  They're forcing them to obey the licence that they applied to their code, which every developer should have the right to do.  The government does the same thing with laws.  "You may drive your car as long as you obey the traffic laws and it is legal for you to drive at the time you decide to get in your car."  If you don't agree with the speed limit and refuse to abide by it, you can either risk getting caught while breaking the law and suffering the consequences or you can choose to not drive your car.

The people who believe in open source should have every right to licence their code under something like the GPL.  If you don't agree with the licence or you don't want to comply with some little thing it forces you to do, then don't use the code!  It's that simple.

I'll agree that code has the right to be licensed however the user sees fit. I still however think that it's a stupid way to spend open source. Personally, I wouldn't touch GPL code and it's a barrier for some people as well.

Oh well.

[Sidoh]

Yea that's true, it usually ends up better as well.

See!?  It encourages greedy, closed source programmers to make better code!  (Kidding).

I'll agree that code has the right to be licensed however the user sees fit. I still however think that it's a stupid way to spend open source. Personally, I wouldn't touch GPL code and it's a barrier for some people as well.

Oh well.

I don't think it matters if everyone that comes along to see the code uses it.  The point is that the code is available for reference when it's needed.  If someone discovered a solution to some ledgendary computer science excursion and provided the source code for it under the GPL licence, I would bet that there would be implementations under closed source licences soon because they were able to use the open source project as a reference while not coding their implementation by copying pieces of the open source.