On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 10:07 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 08:20, Erwin Rol wrote: > > > And you'll know they are zealots when they make the claim (which > > > they officially do...) that you are violating their copyright if > > > you distribute an executable that might link to a GPL'd library > > > even if you don't include *any* GPL'd code in your distribution. > > > > Does your application work without the GPL library? No? So your > > application _needs_ someone else his copyrighted work to function. > > How does that relate to who controls which piece? Why should it > not be left to the end user whether he is willing to obtain > the required licenses to the parts he wants? Because you make money by selling your software that depends on someone else his work, that's why. And the owners of the GPL library don't control anything but the use of their library. If you don't like that don't use their library for your software. > > So you _need_ the work someone else did to make money? > > I want to *use* software, not sell it. And I'm more concerned > that it be affordable and available than free. The GPL > prevents that. The GPL is a distribution license, "using" is allowed without limitations. So I really don't get what your problem is? The one that is distributing the program that derives from GPL code is the one that has to make sure they follow the GPL, not the end user. And what makes you think GPL software is not "affordable and available", it is Free and most of the time gratis (AKA very affordable). > > > And you _demand_ > > that it comes for free and gratis! If you don't like the GPL license of > > the library, rewrite it, nothing stops you from doing that. > > I'm not demanding anything. I'm pointing out that the GPL tries > to assert control of components that belong to others and prevents > many useful combinations of things from being available at all. No others try to take control of GPL software, nobody forces those "others" to use the GPL software for their product. > Ummm, no. In many cases it is used intentionally to prevent > other people's improved versions from competing against the > company's own commercial version (MySQL, ghostscript, etc.). > In other cases the effect may be accidental, but it is still > anti-competitive and prevents end users from having the choice > to pay for the improved versions. *shock* *horror* Commercial companies like MySQL dare to charge money for the work they did? But when you don't want to pay they dare to put their software under a license (GPL) you don't like. An improved GPL version of MySQL can compete just fine with the closed source MySql. Especially since MySql can not put the GPLed improvements in their closed source version. And guess what you don't even have to pay for the improved GPL version. > > Can someone please point me to the law that says "you are forced to use > > GPL software" since apparently some people feel they are forced to use > > this unfair GPL license. > > What's the point of it existing then if people shouldn't use it? The point is I (and I think a lot of others) use it, and I don't care if you do. You are free to not use it. It is plain copyright law, you are not allowed to copy my work (installing it on your machine is copying) without my permission. And I (and others) happen to only give that permission in the form of the GPL license. Whats so hard about this? - Erwin
