Re: 'GPL encumbrance problems' (jdow)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 10:36, Andy Green 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.

So the Microsoft claims of "Total Cost of Ownership" end up being
true....  But that's for the things where workarounds like
NDISwrapper or basically illegal reverse-engineered products
like decss happen to exist.  What about the case where a driver
needs to be in the kernel and can't work without patented
routines?  Why does anyone think it is good to not be able
to use Linux at all in this situation?

> > 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?

No you can't.  The non-GPL'd component only asserts control over
itself.  It makes no claim of control of distribution over other
things that an end user might choose to use with it.  People
are free to distribute parts that add value under whatever
terms they want and the the user has free choice of the terms.
The GPL claims it can control distribution of other components
and take away this choice.

>  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.

And I mean, what's the point then?  Why is it better if people
use Windows or OSX instead?

-- 
  Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx


[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux