Artful Code modules

[Jeff]

I doubt it. It just means that any application which uses the actual newLISP source must be GPL as well, as a derivative work.



I just decided that it was not important to me that someone "borrowing" my code release those modifications as open source as well. It is different for a programming language vs libraries written in that language.

[xytroxon]

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200001/msg00055.html">The GPL and commercial development

From: Richard Stallman [mailto:rms@gnu.org]

Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 8:41 PM

To: farber@cis.upenn.edu



You will often hear people say that the GPL does not allow use of the

code in commercial software.  This is a subtle confusion.



The GPL does not make any distinction between commercial and

noncommercial software development.  It allows businesses to do all

the same things that individuals and schools are allowed to do.



However, the GPL does forbid use of the code in *proprietary*

(non-free) software.  The GPL does not allow adding any additional

restrictions to any program that includes the code.  So any program

that incorporates the GPL-covered code, whether it be commercial,

academic, or avocational, must be released as free software.  As a

whole, it must be released under the GPL (though you can put a more

lax GPL-compatible license such as X11 on the parts you write, if you

wish).



I think that people who say the GPL disallows commercial software are

probably saying "commercial" but actually thinking "proprietary".  But

while they may understand the GPL rightly, lumping together commercial

software and proprietary software is a grave mistake.  There is plenty

of noncommercial non-free software.  There is also commercial free

software--and we want to encourage more.



If we want to encourage people to write commercial free software,

first of all we should make sure they know it is a conceivable thing.

So let's not use terminology which implies it is impossible!





Note, the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation are not

associated with "open source".  We are part of the Free Software

Movement, not the Open Source Movement.  For more explanaion,

see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-soft ... eedom.html">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html.

-------------



I respect Lutz using the GPL, he has freely given us this software called newLISP (under the terms of the GPL), for our use... He has spent many years of his life creating newLISP... It costs us only the time we take to learn how to use it... Thank you sir...



So why can't you create an application that you give away as part of your business plan??? You do have  a business plan ;)



And, if someone else gives away your application, under the terms of the GPL, think of it as FREE advertising! The more people that are exposed to your product, the more people that will want your advice and expertise that you sell... As for profit books, training, seminars, personal access, etc...



Face the facts, do any of you buy much, if any, software these days? And if you do, do you like it very much? Is try before you buy limited use crapware er. "shareware" even worth downloading today?



Under the terms of the GPL, if you improve the newLISP code, you give it back, for all of us to benefit from, as you do from the work of others who have given back before... The fact is, if you steal code, and keep it as your own, you also keep all the flaws and limitations... That YOU and you alone must fix for your customers... And you have nobody to turn to to help you fix it, because you stole the code...



In the long term, you get a better product the more eyes you have using and reviewing it... A closed source newLISP would not be half the valuable program it is today, or even a tenth of what it can become in the future...



Why wouldn't you want that same benefit for your code?



(Now feel free to attack my foolish idealism ;)



-- xytroxon

[joejoe]

Lutz: it seems that the GPL is holding back the adoption of newLISP by people. What are the benefits that outweigh this (to my mind) major disadvantage?

i would say that, in the long run, Lutz has been smartest and most helpful to release newLISP under the gplv3. the gpl *is* the benefit of nL, as other languages have yet to realize. linux is a supreme example of attracting talent to help develop broadly and rapidly.

I understand that some other scripting languages have more flexible licences that allow people more freedom to work and develop in their own chosen way...

they are more flexible, as spoken above in this thread, for the programmer / distributor / proprietor, but for a community, non-copyleft licensing isnt ideal. i think Jeff said it precisely:

It would only hold people back from extending the language themselves and re-branding it proprietorially.

the gpl prevents code from the black hole effect where contributed code can be removed and withheld from the community (bsd/mit type licensings allow black holing code).



licensing is really an issue of gathering support through trust: ensuring any contributor that his or her work will remain freely contributed to all.



its always a personal decision, but i would not want to contribute my help to a project that allows others to withhold my contributions and help from the person that ends up with the software. through time, i think that a lot of developers are going to realize that the gpl is a good idea because their own code cant be withheld from their own grandchildren. :0)



cormullion, does this make good sense and/or is does this at least clarify what can and cannot be done with gpl/copyleft code from code that is not?

[cormullion]

I'm assuming that people don't want to modify newLISP itself, but want to write some application running on top of newLISP that they want to sell, to make a living from their own programming efforts. I know that this is already done by some developers.



For example, I know of one shareware product that consists of a big chunk of Python code, plus lots of open source components, and no doubt lots of proprietary Objective C code too to bind it all together. There must be other products like this, especially from indie developers. I don't think anyone loses out - software's being purchased (*), Python's being used, the community gets feedback from developers, stuff gets tested in real-world situations, users get products built on good foundations, developers get paid and can stop working for evil corporations, etc. It appears to me, a layperson, that this situation is one that newLISP would prosper in. At least, it doesn't appear to have damaged Python.



I realise that I hijacked this thread, and that it has nothing to do with jeff's modules; it was just that I was reading something on a thread about how someone couldn't write commercial software with newLISP, which seemed a outcome that wasn't ideal. It seems like more people lose out the GPL way, although perhaps the moral highground is safely attained.



But note that I'm probably playing devil's advocate a bit - I don't personally have anything to license... :)





(*) I certainly wouldn't agree that all commercial/shareware products are not worth paying money for. At least, that hasn't been my experience on the Mac.

[joejoe]

I'm assuming that people don't want to modify newLISP itself, but want to write some application running on top of newLISP that they want to sell, to make a living from their own programming efforts. I know that this is already done by some developers.



[...]



I realise that I hijacked this thread, and that it has nothing to do with jeff's modules; it was just that I was reading something on a thread about how someone couldn't write commercial software with newLISP, which seemed a outcome that wasn't ideal. It seems like more people lose out the GPL way, although perhaps the moral highground is safely attained.

as xytroxon pointed out above, i dont think there is any problem writing commercial code w/ newLISP.



in fact, i think that Jeff's modules can be boxed and sold w/out source code for $$.

[m35]

For those not so familiar with the implications of the GPL, I listed some cases in http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=16548#16548">another thread (to reduce the hijacking of this one ;).