#+SETUPFILE: ../../../template/level-2.org
#+TITLE: Thoughts on GPL after reading a blog at ReactOS
#+DATE: <2013-12-25 Wed 00:00>
#+AUTHOR: vaeringjar
#+EMAIL: vaeringjar@land
#+DESCRIPTION: In response to a blog post "Intellectual Property: Ideology vs Practicality" on ReactOS.
#+KEYWORDS: freedom software


* Post

By claiming copyright or choosing a license I do not mean to obfuscate
Fair Use.

In response to "Intellectual Property: Ideology vs Practicality" on
ReactOS: http://www.reactos.org/node/724

So I'm a nut for intellectual property discussions. I feel like I
either missed some reference to another discussion (re:
consequences). It reads vague, but I think I can keep my reactions
abstract enough.

I can almost do a line-by-line commentary.

"[GPL was created to ensure] users of software should have the right
to modify and extend the software as they see fit" or more accurately,
though less precisely, "[GPL was created to ensure] users of software
are granted freedoms."

"To achieve this goal [the GPL enacts copyleft]." Copyleft software
implies free software, but not equates. E.g. MIT is free but without
the copyleft of the GPL.

But then there is "but there are also consequences..." and a few notes
about how "GPL can actually discourage the reuse of code licensed
under it" which make less sense. Since the softwares in topic are not
discussed in this blog post, my response is to say that when using
GPL'd code with another license, one should not use it directly. It's
easy to extensibly add API functionality or to take arguments or
receive messages so that one program can call on another (oh the joys
of writing one's first shell). It does start to get legally awkward if
one wants to combine modules of different licenses, but that can
happen without the GPL.

"Again, this is a burden..." No silver bullet, eh? =)

"As such, it can become cheaper in the long run to roll one's own
solution than to reuse existing GPL covered code." This could be true,
but without any real examples behind it this is impossible to say. It
is possible that it could be true, normatively, but generally speaking
it is false; thought experiment: I take the Dark Mod and replace all
of the CC-NC content with commercially licensed content (for example,
but not limited to the GPL) that is orginal works from my own
artists. Now I have a commerical product that I can sell. My cost
benefit analysis is arm-chaired due to the fact that the artistic
portions of the game were essential to the development either with
shared GPL code or inventing myself.

"[Apache or BSD are more permissive, and] there is no requirement that
every other piece of the software come under the same license." This
statement might confuse some readers. Even the newer versions of
Apache and BSD are compatible with GPL. The point here is that GPL
requires that the license remains intact.

"For developers that do not care about ideology..." Why would a
developer use a free or open source license if they do not care? This
is not retorical. For example, why not just put the project into the
public domain or just not release the source code and keep it
proprietary?  Either of these options are free of the "[burden] bound
by the GPL [that developers/distributors are] obliged to produce that
code upon request."

A note only on delivery: "Metaphorically..." There is actually some
irony here because the open vs closed portion is borderline simili the
way it is written while the free software is actually a metaphor. So
the orders are instance[ideology, device]: openvsclose(ordinal,
continuum), free(continuum, ordinal). As for the argument, I am not
sure if I agree with this or not. I am interested to know more.

"With free software, the situation can become sticky very quickly."
This is either a giveaway that the author equates free software with
copyleft or just another indicator that I am not informed enough about
the specific subject matter. Seems like the latter, given the context
of the blog.

What it seems like the point of the discussion hinges on is the idea
that a piece of software can move freely from a free but non-copyleft
software license to either a copyleft license or a proprietary binary
release. The free but non-copyleft, is the middle of the bell curve.
