Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: Mechanical license

Author:Chris Hanson
Posted:8/25/2000; 11:03:36 PM
Topic:A softer GPL?
Msg #:20308 (In response to 20267)
Prev/Next:20307 / 20309

Brett wrote:
If you publish a song, someone can record his or her own version. This is called compulsory licensing.

Is this the case for anybody who publishes a song? I'm not a member of any music industry trade groups or organizations, and have no relationship with the Harry Fox Agency; why would you talk to them instead of me if you wanted to record a version of a song I wrote?

Basically, Brett, you're trying to assume privileges that you haven't been granted. (The right to modify some code and then treat the entire combined work as your own.) I don't think it's reasonable to say that refusing to grant you this privilege is either "unethical" or incompatible with commercial software development.

And FYI, you certainly can take GPL'd software commercial. NeXT sold their NEXTSTEP Developer package for $800 per seat, and it was all built around NeXT's modified version of the GNU C Compiler. NeXT distributed their changes to GCC, and the didn't (couldn't!) prevent anyone from distributing the binaries or the source code to anyone at all, and somehow this didn't seem to cause them any sort of irreperable harm... In fact, Apple's (formerly NeXT's) WebObjects high-end web application development system is a commercial product that is built on GCC. By all accounts it's very profitable for Apple...

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:18 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.