3 ms·

I see what the GPL wants to do as quite noble. It's a share-and-share-alike system. I've run into many people who are very opposed to the GPL, generally becau

I see what the GPL wants to do as quite noble. It's a share-and-share-alike system. I've run into many people who are very opposed to the GPL, generally because they can't build upon GPL code without being required to release their code under a GPL license. In general, I see these people as wanting a license to protect their ideas, but a license isn't designed for that. A license protects work (by preventing what you can do with it, while the idea is often evident, documented, or easily derivable). A patent protects ideas. If your idea is so good it can stand on its own then you can patent it and release the code in whatever way you want because you can still prevent people from using your idea even if they can see your code. Heck, if your code is so great that you should get all the royalties, then wouldn't you want everyone else to be able to see how awesome it is?

jrockway 17y ago
Let's not advocate software patents. I would like to, say, write a windowing system from scratch without having to worry that my use of xor-ing a cursor onto the screen is patented. (http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/int-prop/heckel-debunking.html http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/int-p...) Sure, that's a good idea, but the value is in the windowing system, not a tiny implementation detail. That is why copyright is the right tool for protecting computer programs; patents just stall progress.
tedunangst 17y ago
Why is the GPL the only option for people who would like to see how awesome their code is? Why is getting royalties incompatible with letting people see the source? The answer, of course, is that both questions are nonsense.