An Interview With Orkie

[Coder]

You haven't actually said anything that in in disagreement with what I actually said in the interview. Read it and you will see I have no problem with the GPL for applications really. It's libraries I don't like the GPL being used for - the LGPL is in my opinion more than adequate for protecting your code whilst allowing me to release my code truly for free.

I agree with that, for most libraries LGPL is more than adequate, but at the end of the day, it's the developers who decide what license they want to use and it's up to us to respect that.

I know I'll never actually win any of these arguments because there are so many more GPL-likers than BSD-likers, but like I keep saying (though nobody seems to spot this) my only issue with the GPL is the linking.

But you'd have the same problems (or more) if a library was released under a proprietary license.

And clearly I do respect the library author's wishes by not using them and letting their good code go to waste in a situation where it would really be on benefit. libmad is just an example I use because it's something that I've had to contend with recently, but because it is licensed under the GPL, the GP2X community as a whole suffers because Open2x can't use it for MP3 decoding. Sure I can release a version with it built in and let people break the GPL themselves when they run applications that link to it that aren't GPL-ed, but that is a bit unfair, forcing people to break it just because some license is fashionable at the moment.

Or you could do what every other Linux distribution does and include it so that people could use GPL'd applications that link against it. I can't see any justification for withholding it just because someone some day may write an application that links against it and isn't released under GPL.

I also like how people assume I personally am affected by the GPL-ing of code and seem to like the fact they've 'got one up on me'. The fact is, the GPL doesn't affect me directly in most cases, but those who make use of my stuff. I nearly release the vast majority in the public domain or under the BSD license, which you can't dispute are 'free' so I avoid GPL libraries like the plague. It angers me that I, a programmer, also have to act as a lawyer because some people feel the need to force their licenses upon me. At the end of the day, how many people could actually afford to take somebody breaking the GPL to court? I certainly couldn't so I just save myself the hastle.

This wasn't addressed at you directly Coder, I realise you were talking in a more general sense for most of that. I don't say I should be able to take anybody else's code but if it is a separate entity like a library, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to use it. If it were a separate binary running as a daemon it'd be fine, so why not linking?

Nor was I having a go at you, just giving my take on it and maybe highlighting why people get so emotional about this subject.

But I don't really see any difference between using someones code and linking to someones library. In either case, it's using their hard work to achieve something. As for the library/daemon thing, it would be perfectly legal to write a daemon that just sat waiting for input from an application and then called the library routines, release it under the GPL and then write your application to interface with it. Your application could then be released under any license you like. If you don't think that is a suitable way to go, you probably do realise the difference between a library and a daemon.

At the end of the day, I guess it all boils down to "Because the author wanted it that way", which is good enough for me.

 

[Alex.]

See, the daemon trick is basically a work-around to avoiding linking, which is the simpler and cleaner thing to do. This need for a work-around shows how stupid lawyerly licenses are, and how much of a useless hindrance they are to programmers. How can something be advertised as 'wholly free' when restrictions such as a certain specific license is imposed on whoever uses this 'wholly free' software? As Orkie said, this leads to perfectly usable code going to waste, and the need to reinvent the wheel at best.

 

[evol]

BSD type licenses are for people who love "freedom", and wants to share that freedom with others. (BSD findings benefits all parties)

GPL type licenses are for people who wants to protect their own and others "freedom" to share.(GPL findings only benefits those who wants to share)

in a perfect world BSD licenses would be best , but then again the world is not perfect.
in my view the 2 type of licenses is a BIG advancement from the closed side of things.
we are lucky to live in a time when benefactors bitch about who will help us best.

 

[Perky_Goth]

Sure I can release a version with it built in and let people break the GPL themselves when they run applications that link to it that aren't GPL-ed, but that is a bit unfair, forcing people to break it just because some license is fashionable at the moment.

Wrong. You can only break it on distribution. The GPL is not an EULA, you can do what you want with it for yourself.
The GPL is more than fashionable. It has won on the market, it has business support.

I also like how people assume I personally am affected by the GPL-ing of code and seem to like the fact they've 'got one up on me'. The fact is, the GPL doesn't affect me directly in most cases, but those who make use of my stuff.

The GPL isn't directed at affecting you but at making sure that code can be distributed and built upon. While it may have an influence where there are a few number of great coders, like the GP2X community, it has, again, ensured that software got commercial backing elsewhere.
By the way, it isn't so much a religious issue but a political one. And, evidently, an economic one too.

 

[Exophase]

I didn't actually realize Hooka interviewed GP2X devs in addition to GP32 ones, but it's nice that he does *_*