4 ms·

Folks who write Open Source software generally want that software to be used. That's true. But the use of GPL specifically shows that they also wanted somethin

Folks who write Open Source software generally want that software to be used. That's true. But the use of GPL specifically shows that they also wanted something else: to limit the behavior of those using it. Thus, you can't put the blame squarely on Nintendo. They seem to have been forced to make the prohibition on open source because of the latter's licensing terms. The article mentions that the real problem was that Atari was stuck between GPL rules and Nintendo's agreements. So if the open source community was less militant about restricting how its product can be used, things like this would be less likely.

SwellJoe 17y ago
I never said that was all that folks who write Open Source software want. I didn't really see any reason to argue BSD vs. GPL in this context, but if you really want to... When a developer chooses GPL, they have multiple motives. One of those motives is to insure that everybody that ever uses the software have access to the source. Another is that they want anyone that modifies and distributes the software to be obliged to give their changes back to the community. One can desire these two things, while still wanting people to use the software. As the creators of the software the developers have the right to want all of these things. They have the right to choose this license, just like you have the right to choose a more liberal license if you don't have the same desires for your software. We develop software under the BSD license, and it has millions of users worldwide, many of whom are commercial and don't contribute changes back and don't disclose the source to their users. We're fine with that. We also have software licensed under the GPL. We have different motivations for the BSD vs. GPL projects...we'd like one to be a platform, used by as many people as possible. We'd like the other to have some additional obligations for anyone that makes changes and distributes them, because we're building a business directly on that software. In the ScummVM case, the developers clearly feel like part of their mission in life is to bring Free Software to people that may not have been exposed to it. That's a worthy mission. So, merely having a lot of users would not satisfy the mission. The only positive outcome here would have been if the code continued to be used by all those new people, and in a GPL compliant fashion. If mere use would have satisfied them, they could have simply ignored the licensing issue.

SwellJoe 17y ago

I never said that was all that folks who write Open Source software want. I didn't really see any reason to argue BSD vs. GPL in this context, but if you really want to... When a developer chooses GPL, they have multiple motives. One of those motives is to insure that everybody that ever uses the software have access to the source. Another is that they want anyone that modifies and distributes the software to be obliged to give their changes back to the community. One can desire these two things, while still wanting people to use the software. As the creators of the software the developers have the right to want all of these things. They have the right to choose this license, just like you have the right to choose a more liberal license if you don't have the same desires for your software. We develop software under the BSD license, and it has millions of users worldwide, many of whom are commercial and don't contribute changes back and don't disclose the source to their users. We're fine with that. We also have software licensed under the GPL. We have different motivations for the BSD vs. GPL projects...we'd like one to be a platform, used by as many people as possible. We'd like the other to have some additional obligations for anyone that makes changes and distributes them, because we're building a business directly on that software. In the ScummVM case, the developers clearly feel like part of their mission in life is to bring Free Software to people that may not have been exposed to it. That's a worthy mission. So, merely having a lot of users would not satisfy the mission. The only positive outcome here would have been if the code continued to be used by all those new people, and in a GPL compliant fashion. If mere use would have satisfied them, they could have simply ignored the licensing issue.