> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Feldman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 10:36 AM
> Hi everyone,
> For what it's worth, let me throw a few comments into this mix.
> Allchin's argument is, essentially, that the government should stop
> funding any work that would be released under GPL-type restrictions.
> Effectively, if it were to do so, the government would be preferring
> the proprietary model to the GPL-type open-source one. I'm not going
> to add to the heated debate of the merits of one model over the other.
Actually, I think Allchin's argument is simply that any Government-funded
code ought to be "unencumbered" by any license, except for an "attribution"
license (one that requires the code source be noted in any derivative work,
similar to the BSD license). As Wes points out, the GPL tries to "liberate"
as much software as possible, beyond the bounds of the original code, and
for Government-funded code that seems unreasonable.
While I like the GPL for its intentions, I have to side with Allchin that
Government-funded code development should not be propagating GPL
code-socialism, any more than it should propagate proprietary code. It is
OUR tax money so the code ought to be as unencumbered as possible.
That is how I see the argument and it makes a lot of sense to me.