Message-ID: <3D4AC141.7040305@csi.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 13:28:33 -0400
From: John Colagioia <JColagioia@csi.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020618 Netscape/7.0b1
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Subject: Re: IF library licence / game licence
References: <3d4632e1.170761705@news.buffalo.edu> <uit2xl4yw.fsf@dfan.thecia.net> <3d46c553.338368@news.buffalo.edu> <3d46febb@excalibur.gbmtech.net> <3d4732de.14420615@news.buffalo.edu> <3D47E88E.3030903@csi.com> <3d47ef0e.442205134@news.tiscali.nl> <3D4949A6.9030307@csi.com> <aibncg$3e6$2@reader2.panix.com> <3D4A761D.4090809@csi.com> <3d4a7a2c.78465842@news.tiscali.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net
X-Trace: excalibur.gbmtech.net 1028308850 ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net (2 Aug 2002 13:20:50 -0400)
Organization: ProNet USA Inc.
Lines: 55
X-Authenticated-User: jnc
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshosting.com!news-xfer1.atl.newshosting.com!uunet!dca.uu.net!excalibur.gbmtech.net
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:107005

Richard Bos wrote:
> John Colagioia <JColagioia@csi.com> wrote:
[...]
>>One can do whatever he wishes with a work in the Public Domain; one
>>can similarly do whatever he wishes with a work licensed under the
>>GPL.
> No, one can't. One cannot use a library under the GPL while keeping
> one's own source code private. One can certainly do this with a PD
> library, or one under the usual commercial licences.

You can at least read the entire post before trying to "explain" this
to me.

To review, in nice, simple terms, for those who haven't quite gotten
the idea:

1.  In the absence of a license, no rights are extended to the
     prospective user.
2.  Licenses are intended to identify two things:
     a)  The rights which are extended, and
     b)  Those to whom the rights in (a) are extended.

Both Public Domain and GPL licensing extend essentially the same
rights to their users.  The difference is in to whom those rights are
extended; in the GPL case, you have to promise to release source to
be part of that group.

The difference is equivalent to the comparison of (to use the other
standard example) the copy of the MS-EULA coming with Windows 2000,
and the copy of the MS-EULA coming with Office; they extend
(approximately) the same rights (small though they are) to different
sets of people (those who bought the particular product in question).
It is not equivalent to the difference between, say, the OSI license
and the MIT license (which extend different, though similar, rights
to the same group of people).

> To some people, including myself under certain circumstances, this is a
> major limitation.

It is not a limitation.  You're not part of the GPL-identified group,
therefore, you are not granted the rights specified by the license.

I am not making judgements on any license (I rather dislike the GPL
for the same reasons you do, and a couple more).  I'm identifying the
similarities so people will stop talking about licenses as if they
infringe on pre-existing rights which they don't have.  Licenses
*give* rights; they can't claim them or limit yours, as long as
you're part of the target group.

To reiterate, in case any of that was not clear:  Public Domain
licensing gives the rights to modify and distrubute to everybody; GPL
licensing gives the rights to modify and distribute to those who
choose, a priori, to release their software under the GPL.  Same
rights; different user groups.

