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
