Andy Green wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
[snip]
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...
No, nobody tries to assert control by linking with a library. We *maintain* control of our own software by *avoiding* the use of [L]GPL libraries. That's all anyone said that I saw.
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.
This begs the question. If you are going to produce something
which almost all software developers either cannot or will
not use, then why produce it? An acceptable answer is
"Because it's fun, and I'm a member of a very small club
who like to trade software with ourselves." That was
essentially Richard Stallman's answer. Many years ago
when the FSF was just getting started, I exchanged some
e-mail with Richard Stallman. That was the essence of his
position as I understood it at the time. He was, basically,
just "doing his thing", and didn't much care whether anyone
else came along. He knew that there would be some who were
like minded, and that was enough.
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!
