Les Mikesell wrote: > 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. Hm well things are a little more complicated in the round. Some kinds of drivers like Wifi, proprietary USB are not available on anything but Windows. There was a cool article by Arjan van de Ven http://lwn.net/Articles/162686/ which had an extended "what if" that binary modules were acceptable in the kernel. According to the principles in that article, you can say that the rejection of binary modules in the GPL'd kernel will tend to increase support while keeping the price free. > 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. Can you not turn that around and say that if this was not so, the non-GPL-licensed component would be trying to "assert control" of the GPL component to be consonant with its license? One dog is going to try to eat the other one, better it is our dog doing the eating... >>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? He meant only if you don't like the license terms then don't use it. -Andy
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
