Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 02:13, Paul Howarth wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 18:27 -0800, jdow wrote:
From: "Mike McCarty" <mike.mccarty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
No, GPL forces one to open everything.
Not true. It forces you to open everything that uses ANYTHING that is
itself GPL contaminated and not purely your own work. (You can dual
license your own work.)
I don't see what the big deal is with the GPL "encumbrance". It's just
like any other license - if you can't live with its terms, just don't
incorporate software licensed by it into your own work.
It's like seeing some whiz-bang control you might like to use if you're
a Visual Basic programmer, except that the license for the control costs
$1,000. If you don't want to pay the $1,000, you don't use the control.
What's the difference?
So it wouldn't bother you at all if every time someone asked
a question here about a problem that exists in Linux distributions
the answer was always to drop Linux and switch to OSX, Windows,
Solaris or similar commercial products that include working
code under licences not compatible with the GPL?
What is it that is GPL'ed in this example? If a developer wants to use
someone else's GPLed code in their product (and distribute it), they
must GPL their product too. If they don't want to use anyone else's
GPL'ed code, they don't.
> "Don't use it" on the developer side means "not available on Linux"
on the
end user side.
No, it means "use someone else's library or write your own", just as you
would in the proprietary world.
Paul.
