I can't say. It really depends on the judge. Preabales (including the GPL preamable) have it's problems, mostly because they cram too much into a few paragraphs. I would not be surprised if a judge ignores it in favour of other, more extensive context.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by Sander
...which is exactly that. A preamable. It's not part of the terms and conditions and carries no (legal) meaning.

Are you sure about this? I think if a dispute arises about how to interpret a particular clause of the license, then people will look at the context, and the preamble is a big part of that context.

No, the licenser's intention is irrelevant. If the terms are unclear or ambiguous, it's the licenser's problem. He can't point at a preamble and say "but that's what I meant".

Quote: Original post by Sander

Quote: Uhm, it is written in the preamble of the license...

...which is exactly that. A preamable. It's not part of the terms and conditions and carries no (legal) meaning.

And yet it is still part of the GPL, and removing it is forbidden.

Quote: Original post by WazzatMan

Quote: Huh. It's incredibly how incredibly pompous this thread's premise is.

The thread's premise is that while the majority of open source software is supported by hobbyists, the best projects are generated by fulltime programmers. Ergo, it would be helpful to everyone if we paid for open source software like we pay for closed source, because that sustains the programmers who devote their time to these projects.

"everyone"?

Quote: Original post by WazzatMan
It's ridiculous because it is unsustainable.

Really? What proof is there for your statement?

Quote: Original post by WazzatMan
They provide a good bounty to the corporation in the short term, but in the long term it's existance would be constantly on edge. It would need to devour other smaller companies, and expand into other markets, abusing it's monopoly in order to do so.

More statements with no proof that I can see.

Quote: Original post by WazzatMan
I'm saying that if it's trapped in a vault it hurts everyone more than it helps everyone. Ergo I don't want it trapped in a vault.

You're on a roll with the "nothing to back me up" statements.

It's really simple - software creators have the right to do whatever they wish with the software they create, period! Demanding that someone do what you want them to do is stupid.

I truly dislike and disagree with the whole idea that is behind the FSF/GPL/LGPL and try to avoid its use as much as possible (only use it at work when I have to). I have always hated the GPL license as no matter what you tell me, it is no where close to being free.

As far as releasing application for free and just charge for support; that is very good in theory however a lot of people will just take the application and figure out how to use it themselves.

As far as the whole everyone should have access to the source code. For general purpose applications like stuff in Open Office or Microsoft Office I just don't buy it. The majority of the people buying that software when never need the source code because the majority of the people using that software probably don't even know what source code is. Now if you are talking about an application specifically designed for developers like a game engine, than there is much more reason to release source code with the product however there still is no reason that they absolutely should. Torque 3d and a game engine that does release the source code when you buy a license to the engine. Unity is also a game engine however it does not generally release the source code when buy a license. Both game engines are great and I personally use Unity because having access to the source code does not matter to me.

Some people keep saying that information should be free to the public. While again this is great in theory but in real life, this suck for the people who spend the time figuring out that information. Let say I develop a new game engine that has a particular rendering technique that make the rendering 5X faster than any other game engine with the same hardware. Lets say it took me 3 years of researching to discover this technique. Why should I give this technique away for free?

Can you build and maintain a company solely off building free open source software? Sure. Can you build and maintain a company solely off building closed source proprietary software? Sure. I don't think that either one should or will go away any time soon however the fact that the FSF want to kill closed source proprietary software make me want them to go away (not the idea of free open source software but the idea of no more closed source proprietary software).

Do you really think the software that the goverment uses for mission critical areas should be open for anybody to take a look? How about bank software? Why is software so special that all of it should be free?

About GPL, whether you use it out of intent, ignorance, or apathy you are agreeing to its manifesto by using it. There are similar licenses out there that don't have a political message attached to them.

Quote: Original post by stupid_programmer
Do you really think the software that the goverment uses for mission critical areas should be open for anybody to take a look? How about bank software? Why is software so special that all of it should be free?

Uh...in a lot of cases, those are probably the pieces of software that MOST ought to be free. That allows them to be properly reviewed by independent observers, because history has shown that banks frequently don't know what the hell they're doing. And government software is basically written on the taxpayer dollar.

Quote: Original post by Promit

Quote: Original post by stupid_programmer
Do you really think the software that the goverment uses for mission critical areas should be open for anybody to take a look? How about bank software? Why is software so special that all of it should be free?

Uh...in a lot of cases, those are probably the pieces of software that MOST ought to be free. That allows them to be properly reviewed by independent observers, because history has shown that banks frequently don't know what the hell they're doing. And government software is basically written on the taxpayer dollar.

Agreed. I disagree with the GPL's intentions, but making publicly-funded source code public makes a whole lot of sense. The more mission-critical it is, the more I'm convinced it should be public.

What I meant is the US goverment already gets dozens (hundreds?) of attacks everyday on its computer systems. Putting out the source code would just about be like giving the hackers the keys to place. Fixing a buffer overflow error that got missed after a hacker has launched the nukes might be a bit of a moot point. Even if it is bug free you are giving them the tools to know what to design around to get what they want. With bank software you might not feel so good after a bug was fixed that drained your bank account.

Go tell the Linux or BSD guys your theory about computer security and see what happens.