|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Writing plug-insRe: Writing plug-ins
From: BlueChip <cs_bluechip_at_webtribe.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:31:26 +0000 No, there never was a fork - (iirc) the thread on this was "there is no fork" - a suitable Matrix pun :) I fail to see how "PD" can be "GPL compatable", as it (relevantly) does not require the code to move, which is the core restraint on GPL that offends _my_ moral stance of "freedom for all." My code will never reach the "main branch" because (for several reason which I outlined in a three hour interview with Linus) I use an online "alias"*. It is now decreed that anybody who even looks at code written by me is "tainted" and therefore NOT allowed to submit code to Rockbox - although, since passing this new (by)law, the core devs have both viewed, used, helped with, included and commented on specific aspects of my code - so if you're gonna take it seriously, the core dev's are all tainted and banned from the project - LOL Even if I had the time and/or patience to fork, my code would still get infected such that certain people could not use my code. BC *I actually agreed to lodge my private details with the core devs if they agreed not to disclose them (excluding legal suppoena); Bjorn alone refused this offer ...Even GCHQ would have been okay with that! LOL >AFAIK, BC, there's nothing stopping you from releasing your code as PD >as well as GPL, so long as it doesn't derive from any previous GPL'd >work. Just that since you don't conform to the procedures of the >project, your code wont find its way into the main branch. Of course >through the magic of the GPL, you can simply fork it (which IIRC you >do do :) ) > >Joe > >On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:10:30 +0100, Anselm Lingnau ><anselm_at_strathspey.org> wrote: > > BlueChip wrote: > > > > > LGPL may well be a wonderful thing - I don't know. The bigger > question is: > > > Why is free (as in 'no-strings-attached') bad? In what way does me > acting > > > as apostle for Gnu's belief system benefit me, or for that matter, anyone > > > other than Gnu? > > > > > > If I write a bit of code which is useful (primarily and) mainly to > users of > > > a bit of software which is GPL - I apparently lose my rights to let > people > > > make money with my code. I spend vast proportions of my life doing > things > > > which make me happy - why shouldn't chremetists be allowed the same basic > > > human right? > > > > The important thing to note about the »free software« world of which > the GPL > > is one of the basic tenets is that it is really mostly about source > code. In > > the grand scheme of things, executable code doesn't really matter (as > long as > > you have a compiler). It is the source code that you can conveniently study > > to learn how it works, conveniently fix if it is buggy, and conveniently > > change to suit your (or your customers') needs. It is the source code > that is > > really worth sharing with others if you're serious about »free > software«, and > > not a glob of binary gobbledygook that just might run on some machine (or > > might not). Hence the GPL's insistence on source code as »the preferred > form > > for modification« of a program. > > > > Thus, publishing »free« (as in beer) executables with no source does > not cut > > it from the point of view of the »free software« scene, where people would > > ideally want source code for every single executable bit on their machines. > > > > The GPL tries to ensure that stuff based on GPLed stuff, for which the > source > > code is »freely available« according to the GPL, remains available > subject to > > the same conditions, which seems fair enough. If you don't want to be bound > > by the GPL on a ready-made piece of software such as Rockbox, feel free to > > write your own equivalent code from scratch. > > > > > It seems to me that GPL is not much short of a psuedo-political power > > > struggle which persues the end of imposing upon 'the masses' the > neccessity > > > to conform to a single belief system - just like Jesus, Bush, Blair and > > > many others before them. > > > > Nope. Everybody is free to use whatever license they want for *their > own* code > > that they wrote themselves from the word go. However, if you borrow > somebody > > else's stuff wholesale to write your own code on top of it, that > somebody is > > entitled to have a say, one way or the other. This applies to GPL code as > > well as to code that you get from Microsoft or some other proprietary > outfit, > > and chances are that the restrictions on the proprietary code will be even > > more onerous than the GPL, e.g., you probably won't be able to share > the code > > with just anyone. > > > > > PS. Just an after-thought: If *I* want to use (portions of) my code, > which > > > has been copy-left infected, in a commercial product... do I also > lose the > > > rights to what was originally my own "Intellectual Property"? > > > > No. If it's yours and useful outside the context of the copylefted > code, you > > can release it separately under whatever license you want. > > > > In any case the GPL doesn't ever make you »lose the rights to your own > > intellectual property«. The only thing it might do is keep you from > > distributing your IP together with somebody else's GPLed IP as part of the > > same program, but that is something else entirely. > > > > Anselm > > -- > > Anselm Lingnau, Frankfurt, Germany ..................... > anselm_at_strathspey.org > > Good advice is something a man gives when he is too old to set a bad > example. > > -- François, Duc de La > Rochefoucauld > > _______________________________________________ > > http://cool.haxx.se/mailman/listinfo/rockbox > > >_______________________________________________ >http://cool.haxx.se/mailman/listinfo/rockbox _______________________________________________ http://cool.haxx.se/mailman/listinfo/rockbox Received on 2005-01-12 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |