[wp-hackers] WordPress and GPLv3

[Roy Schestowitz]

> On 12/26/07, Roy Schestowitz <r at schestowitz.com> wrote:
>> How would you feel if a company began selling WordPress appliances that
>> use unique hardware (e.g. special type of clusters) and are being
>> developed by a group of 500 full-time developers (>Automattic+developer
>> community)?
> 
> I would be absolutely thrilled. I think that it would be fantastic,
> and I would encourage them every step of the way.
> 
> You seem to have the opinion that people selling things is bad. It's
> not. People selling things is good. That's what creates the economy.
> That's what lets you and me continue to eat.

I would be interested to hear your opinion on Oracle's Unbreakable Linux.

>> How would you feel if you were left behind because of those
>> that took your code and 'enhanced' it are using uber-hardware with all
>> kinds of disablement technologies? This is all far-fetched and
>> hypothetic, but Oracle comes to mind (Linux and MySQL forks possible).
> 
> What kinds of "disablement technologies"? That makes no sense at all.
> If you mean that you wouldn't be able to load your own software onto
> the box, then I would understand it completely and even expect it.
> This "appliance" is not a general purpose computer. It's an
> "appliance". Do you want to be able to load new programming into your
> refrigerator, or into your oven? The very notion of "appliance"
> implies a lack of general purpose control.

If your refrigerator maker capitalised on the work of volunteer
programmers, then it would be sensible (sometimes even required) that
the maker:

	1. Releases its modification to the code (it can separate its own
software from other layers or modules).

	2. Enables modified code to run or -- more precisely -- does not
actively forbid it from running, a la Tivo.

>> Translation: "I don't like Richard Stallman's definition of freedom. I
>> like something different."
> 
> Yes, that's absolutely correct.

Thank you. So you just dislike the GPL, or its general philosophy. I no
longer worry about your take on this matter.

> Here's the short of it: I don't release my software under GPLv3
> because I WANT people to use my software to create new and innovative
> things. That was the whole point. The software should be free. And it
> is, under the GPLv2. It's less free under the GPLv3, because less
> people are free to use it. How you can claim it to be more free when
> it's impossible to use it in a wider variety of circumstances is
> beyond me. And Stallman's interpretation of "free" contradicts all
> other reasonable interpretations of it, so don't give me that crap.

I apologise if I sounded rude. It's the nature of non-verbal
communication. The interpretation of "free" has never changed. "Free"
sustains itself despite attempts to defeat it in new 'innovative' ways
("innovative" as in "DRM is innovative").

With kind regards,

Roy