TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Deller, Steve" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:42:06 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: "Deller, Steve" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (31 lines)
> -----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.

Regards,
Steve

ATOM RSS1 RSS2