Erwin Rol wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 07:49 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 05:04, Erwin Rol wrote:
So GPL zealots, as you call them, can implement libraries that are
compatible with other libraries, without violating anybodies copyright.
And they can put libraries under the GPL and force you to follow that
GPL when you use their libraries. You, of course, can reimplement those
libraries too if you want and put them under a different license.
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. So
you _need_ the work someone else did to make money? 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.
This attitude is crazy. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY has demanded that
anyone put anything under GPL or LGPL. That was purely Richard Stallman
who led a group of people off into software nirvana, doing the thing
they wanted to do. Today, nobody writes code that doesn't depend
on somebody else' *something* (except embedded freaks like me).
Not even MicroSoft has tried to claim control of distribution
rights just because some program needs a standard DLL. And that's
the type of argument you are making.
(An exception exists if you can prove that there are compatible
non-GPL'd libraries - which is pretty bizarre, since that in
no way affects what is being copied in your distribution or
how they might claim ownership of it).
It all comes down to; i want your work gratis, so i can make money with
it. And if you dislike that i call you a yealot and bitch and complain
that it is unfair.
No, not at all. It comes down to there are people with certain
idealistic ideas about how software should be produced and
distributed who, as a result of their beliefs, have chosen
on their own to distribute them in a certain way. Nobody asked
them to. They just did it. Other people put that software on
their machines. Then third parties write programs which the
second party (not the third party) choses to use with the
GPL or LGPL stuff. It's not even in the hands of the third
party when that happens.
I wonder whether you think that gun manufacturers should be held guilty
of murder when someone steals a gun and kills someone with it.
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.
Nobody has claimed this, so I won't address this. But would
you please show where anyone has _demanded_ (your word)
someone else to put something under GPL or LGPL?
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
