This is the mail archive of the gsl-discuss@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GSL project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: qawo-problem and a book project


"Peter S. Christopher" wrote:

>         As a comment, i'd like to send a message to the GSL leadership
> about this issue. I'm as big a GPL fan as anyone on this list. But I think
> that, even if it where a GPL violation to include code snippets in the
> book text (which I would argue passionately that it isn't), that it would
> be in the GSL's interest to be lenient on enforcing this. Authors, don't
> want their code snippets to be freely included in other peoples books --
> the author worked hard on them. Yet at the same time, Joe average user
> still has full view of the code snippets -- thus benefiting both joe user
> and the book author. By being lenient, the GSL could increases the
> likelihood of authors basing their text on the GSL -- thus raising the
> visibility of the GSL. I think everybody wins in this scenario.

I've not read the emails on the original question, so don't wish to
comment on whether such an issue is or is not against the GPL. That is
one issue.

However, IF it is against the conditions of the GPL, then it should be
punished, not just quietly ignored. Ignoring the matter, no matter how
much extra publicity the book generates for the gsl, is just a
slippery slope, that weakens the GPL. Not only does is affect the gsl,
but every other program under the GPL. 

Until recently, few people have probably heard of SCO. But SCO's
recent action against IBM, their threat to sue users of IBM's AIX
software (like myself) has bought them more publicity than it would
have done had they gave away all their software. 

As much as I hate this American culture of forever suing people, which
is now coming more and more to the UK, I don't blame SCO being rather
annoyed if (as they claim), IBM have released SCO's code under the
GPL. 

So if the conditions of the GPL are broken, I personally feel it
should be defended, not just ignored. 

Again, I'd just add I'm not saying the GPL is being broken here -
there is just a principle we should uphold if the GPL is being broken. 

-- 
Dr. David Kirkby,
Senior Research Fellow,
Department of Medical Physics,
University College London,
11-20 Capper St, London, WC1E 6JA.
Tel: 020 7679 6408 Fax: 020 7679 6269
Internal telephone: ext 46408
e-mail davek@medphys.ucl.ac.uk


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]