Shane Ambler wrote:
> On 2/9/2006 4:11, "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com> wrote:
>
>> I think that with either the GPL or BSD, code is returned under a type
>> of coercion. Not necessarily a bad thing, understand.
>>
>> The coercion of the GPL is legalistic. If you distribute GPL stuff,
>> you've got to give out the source code with it. So, you might as well
>> give it to the community at large. With BSD, it's more that you'd be
>> cutting yourself off from the community at large if you didn't return
>> the code. So, the coercion is much more subtle. It's much easier to
>> donate your code to the project and let other people maintain it then to
>> try and maintain your own fork of the code and cross patch their changes
>> into your own.
>
> The GPL *forces* you to release your source code where the BSD license gives
> you the option to choose what you want to do with your work. Free choice is
> a good way to get co-operation where forcing would normally get a negative
> response. That's just general human behaviour.
Truly a theorie well proven by the GPL-ed Linux kernel and a few hundred
other GPL licenced software packages, or is it?
To me "general human behaviour" also includes not wanting to take
advantage of other people / other people's work and not returning
anything to the ones that give you something for free. Naturally, there
will also always be vultures and thieves, so the GPL tries to act as an
educational instrument.
The fact is that most decent people have no problem with the
"stranglehold" of the GPL, as it is clear to them that the GPL does not
ask them to do anything which should be normal anyway.
