Simple motivation

Posted Aug 8, 2003 5:50 UTC (Fri) by Peter (guest, #1127) [Link]

Whether you think GPL is perfect or not, it's our cornerstone, not to be ignored lightly.

First off, who is the "we" in "our"? I don't consider the GPL my cornerstone, even though I use v2 in most of the code I write. I have no problems contributing to projects that use other open source licenses - I don't consider such projects impure, or second-class citizens.

Also, I'm pretty sure Real didn't "ignore" the GPL. In fact, they mention it inside the RPSL! It simply didn't fit their perceived needs, specifically in terms of patent use grants and related language. The RPSL is actually very similar to the GPL in spirit.

You know who you really sound like? Microsoft. (Yes, I know, corollary to Godwin's Law.) They love free software, you know, so long as its license is BSD-like. Because then they can reuse the software. They look at the GPL and say "we don't like this license, because it is not compatible with our own licenses, and we can't take your GPL code and integrate it with our products. You should change your license to have fewer restrictions, otherwise your code is useless to us." Which is exactly what you are telling Real about their license. Never mind if you think your request is "more reasonable" than Microsoft's - the difference is in degree, not kind.

I think it was arrogant of RN to believe they could do better and expect the community to bend to their requirements.

OK, well, I think it's arrogant of you to tell Real that the GPL is the be-all and end-all of free software licenses, and that their offering is unacceptible if it contains any restrictions, however slight, not found in your all-hallowed L. I mean, look at it objectively for a moment, if you think you're up to it. The RPSL says "you may combine this code with any free software you want, where free software is defined as software using any of the following 30 licenses". The GPL says "you may combine this code with any free software you like, so long as everything is under this one exact license."

Once again, "license incompatibility" is a 2-way street. Maybe one license doesn't meet all the needs in the world. Maybe there is one license restriction out there that actually makes sense to Real Networks but which RMS (am I supposed to add "may he live forever"?) did not include in his watershed legal document 12 years ago. Given that possibility, I think Real has met the community more than halfway.

As a footnote, let me publicly thank Real Networks for coming up the RPSL section 4.2 and Exhibit B - I intend to add similar language to the license arrangements of any free software I hold significant copyrights to, assuming I can find a good, unobtrusive way to do so. (Yes, I'm talking GPLv2 projects here.)