Zed Shaw: Why I (A/L)GPL

Re:Zed Shaw: Why I (A/L)GPL by snprbob86 on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @03:36AM (#703271)

Every time I think I understand software licenses, I immediately think I don't. The posts I've seen today have only served to confuse me more. Is there a simple, understandable, maybe even FUN, required reading page on this subject? I'm looking for "talk to me like I'm a 3 year old" but also "don't waste my time". Suggestions?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zed Shaw: Why I (A/L)GPL by jon_dahl on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @02:22PM (#704280)

As a partial answer to your question, I for one thought that Zed's final point made sense (and made me better understand the GPL):

Open source to open source, corporation to corporation.

Basically, you can do just about anything with MIT- or BSD-licensed software. But the GPL tries to make everything around it GPL too. If you build software that integrates with a GPL'd library, you have to release your software with a GPL (or similar) license.

So Zed's plan is to offer his software under a GPL license for free (open-source to open-source), and also sell it without the GPL license for pay (corp to corp).

Good place to go for GPL info: the GPL FAQ (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zed Shaw: Why I (A/L)GPL by enjo on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @07:24PM (#704833)

In the case of mongrel or lamson, I don't see the difference. All of the binding clauses of the GPL apply to distribution. It isn't until I distribute it that I have any responsibilities at all.

So if I use mongrel or lamson I'm not distributing that code in binary or source form. Thus, if I want to use the code I can do whatever the hell I want (modify it, use it, print it out and bathe in)... until I distribute it somehow (which a typical web-app never does) it makes zero difference.

I'm VERY confused after reading this rant as to what Zed thinks this actually does.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zed Shaw: Why I (A/L)GPL by nudded on Wednesday July 15, 2009 @03:11AM (#705310)

say Zed released Mongrel under a BSD-license, then any big company (or any person really) could come in and modify it, make it better and then sell it. And Zed would be left with nothing. That's what GPL is for, adjusting it is fine, but you can't make money out of a redistributed modified version.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zed Shaw: Why I (A/L)GPL by Tichy on Wednesday July 15, 2009 @03:33AM (#705333)

You can sell GPLed software, Linux distributors did it for years.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zed Shaw: Why I (A/L)GPL by galactus on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:04AM (#703584)

From Richard Gabriel & Ron goldman "Innovation happens elsewhere". Gabriel's prose is almost always very pleasant to read:

http://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-42.html#pgfId-956546 http://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-47.html#pgfId-956575

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zed Shaw: Why I (A/L)GPL by jacobian on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @08:18AM (#703531)

The best single work I've read on the subject is Van Lindberg's _Intellectual Property and Open Source_ (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0596517963/). I don't think it's quite "talk to me like I'm a 3 year old" territory -- it assumes a basic understanding of code and property -- but I don't think it's a waste of time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zed Shaw: Why I (A/L)GPL by petercooper on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:53AM (#703658)

The Wikipedia entries for various licenses are pretty concise and straight shooting, I find. I had the same problem as you until I read them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zed Shaw: Why I (A/L)GPL by tsally on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:40AM (#703634)

The licenses are actually not that long. Just read them. You'll be able to make a pretty good guess as to what they are meant for and how they will work in practice.

If you want airtight legal advice, only a lawyer can get you that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zed Shaw: Why I (A/L)GPL by lucifer on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:51AM (#703651)

Here is the exact opposite of what you asked for:

http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr (via boing boing)

[ Parent | on HN ]