On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 13:35 -0400, max bianco wrote: > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Matthew Saltzman <mjs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 10:41 -0400, max bianco wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:23 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Which is a bizarre thing to be concerned about because the only thing they > > > > could possibly do to diminish the value of the original copy would be to > > > > improve it so much that no one would want the original. As a potential user > > > > of that improved version, I think that restriction is a bad thing. And most > > > > bizarre of all is the notion that I can't obtain my own copy of a GPL'd > > > > library, and someone else's code under their own terms separately. > > > > > > > The hard work is done by the original author. So if I understand you > > > correctly, its ok with you if i use your code, improve it, and > > > relicense it so what you freely contributed is now going to cost you > > > money. So your hard work now belongs to someone else. > > > > > > > I don't think anyone is talking about modifying your code and > > relicensing it. That would clearly be a derived work, and there's no > > question you can impose conditions on its redistribution. > > > > You write a library. I write a program that calls routines in your > > library. Now the question is whether your license can impose conditions > > on my distribution of my own code. That's a fuzzy, gray area, but (to > > mix a metaphor) it's just the tip of the iceberg of complexity. > > > > ChipCo creates a piece of specialized hardware and releases a > > proprietary driver. I write code to interface your library and the > > ChipCo driver. Can your license prevent me from distributing my code? > > If so, you and I might have a reasonable disagreement about whether > > that's a good thing. But you can't deny that some people who might > > benefit from my code (and by extension, your code) are prevented from > > doing so. You can only argue that some greater good is served by their > > suffering. Note that I want to be generous with my code and release it > > under an open-source license; I'm not trying to unfairly benefit from > > your work. > > > > You write a library and distribute it under an open-source license. I > > write a library and distribute it under a slightly different--but > > incompatible--open-source license. Les writes a program that links to > > both libraries. If your license can impose conditions on Les's > > distribution of his program, then users who would get value from Les's > > program are SOL. Note that nothing here violates the spirit of OSS. > > Everyone involved wants to be generous. Nobody is trying to unfairly > > benefit from anyone else's work. But due to a technicality, nobody can > > benefit from Les's work at all! That seems like a shame, doesn't it? > > > > Yes it does but what then is the answer?Everybody argues that A is > right or B is wrong or c....you get the idea. What is the solution? > Let's stop going over the same ground and come up with some kind of > solution. The end user is ultimately the only one that matters, i > think everyone can agree on that, if the end user cannot get their > work done then everyone suffers, so what should we as end user's > do?should i have to pay for a brand new office suite when nothing > substantial except the companies desire to support it has changed?That > is an example not a way to drag M$ into this, so please lets leave the > M$ bashing where it belongs. this will of course create another debate > but at least we will subtly change the content of the conversation. I agree - a solution needs to be found. But then, this is what the heart of this whole thread has been about: legalities of linking different licenses. And Fedora and a minority of users has taken a stand on one side of this issue. Will they condescend to a level where an agreement can be reached? -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
