[vorbis-dev] Vorbis license terms? (fwd)

[Gregory Maxwell]

The license for the Vorbis audio codec was recently changed from GPL to
LGPL because it's author (xiphmont at xiph.org) felt that being GPLed would
hamper it's development.

An argument ensued on the vorbis list about the intentions and
consiquences of the GPL.

Since words are being 'put in your mouth' I thought you might like the
opportunity to comment.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:00:51 -0800
From: Monty <xiphmont at xiph.org>
Reply-To: vorbis-dev at xiph.org
To: vorbis-dev at xiph.org
Subject: Re: [vorbis-dev] Vorbis license terms? 

(As a note... this is now becoming a discussion wandering from practical
bearing on Vorbis to abstract flaming.  It's already been had at great length
elsewhere, and prior experience indicates that it's not going to end until
someone invokes Hitler)

>     The GPL does not remove any freedom over source you write.

No, it simply takes rights away from other developers.  *I* can still do 
whatever I want.  Others are tied.  That's not freedom in the real world.

> It only
> affects derivative works, in which the original author(s) have most of the
> rights.

No, it affects usage rights.  If Vorbis were GPL, no commercial (and I do mean
commercial) system could use it.  Regardless of theory or politics, this will
hurt Vorbis.

>    The GPL does not force anyone to pay a licensing fee. It forces them to
> make a choice between freeing their software under the GPL or asking for a
> proprietary license.

Alexis is arguing from practical experience.  It's difficult to argue that 
reality isn't so.

>    The reason the GPL is written the way it is is because RMS doesn't
> ever want to have to tell someone that he's prohibited from giving them a
> piece of software or telling them how it works.  At least, that's how I
> understand it.  They have never condemned commercial software, only
> proprietary software (AFAIK).

Actually, RMS openly condemns any commercialization of software.  He also
equates being paid for writing software with prostitution.  He's not a halfway
kind of guy.  The Open Source movement needs RMS, but that doesn't mean he
should be trusted with the kingdom, the same way I wouldn't trust any
extremist, fundamentalist or intellectual who consistently chooses elegant (but
disasterously incorrect) logic over the very minimum of common sense.

>     I'm afraid I don't worship on the altar on non-forking.  Probably
> because I don't feel competition == wasted effort.

In my own experience, the single largest cause of forking is way too much ego
flying around.  Forking because of petty bickering *is* a waste and does cause
unneeded confusion.  

Forking for commercial goals is much more sinister.  Witness Microsoft's
"embrace and extend"...

Monty

--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/

--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/