Joel Rees wrote: > > On 2006.2.15, at 10:01 PM, Mike McCarty wrote: > >> Joel Rees wrote: >> >> Would you please quit changing to that giant font? > > > Plain text? Sorry, but that's just something your MUA does with Japanese > text. Unless you want me to remote login and play around with your MUA > configurations for you? ;-* > >>> 2006-02-15 (水) の 00:25 -0600 に Les Mikesell さんは書きました: >>> >>>> On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 23:50, Joel Rees wrote: >>>> >>>>> The only problem with the GPL is the misinterpretations that >>>>> circulate. >> >> >> Whether the interpretations are correct or incorrect, >> the GPL causes companies not to create software. >> Do you disagree with that? > > > No, company managers who refuse to trust things that are not controlled > by money cause themselves to not use GPLed software in their creations. > > The software was not available until it was written and published. > You're faulting the author for publishing it under the GPL when he or > she could well have published it under a license that would require the > sacrifice of your first-born child to merely sniff the source. Nobody I've seen has attributed "fault" to anyone. What I've seen asserted is only what you just agreed is happening. BTW, this is from the Wikipedia... [QUOTE MODE ON] GPL-related disputes A key dispute related to the GPL is whether or not non-GPL software can dynamically link to GPL libraries. The GPL is clear in requiring that all derivative works of GPLed code must themselves be GPLed. However, it is not clear whether an executable that dynamically links to a GPL library should be considered a derivative work. The free/open-source software community is split on this issue, with the FSF asserting that such an executable is indeed a derivative work, and other experts disagreeing. This is ultimately a question not of the GPL per se, but of how copyright law defines derivative works. In Galoob v. Nintendo the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals defined a derivative work as having "'form' or permanence" and noted that "the infringing work must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work in some form," but there have been no clear court decisions to resolve this particular conflict. [QUOTE MODE OFF] And the uncertainty in that is enough that commercial corporations will not produce software which links to GPL or LGPL object code. So the net effect is that Linux users don't get drivers for the latest/best hardware. And that's all that has been asserted. It matters not whether this is an intended consequence, it *is* a consequence. So MicroSoft continues to get drivers for the new hardware, and Linux does not. That's what Les said, and that's what I say. [snip] > False interpretations are not the fault of the people being interpreted. They are when the people making what you assert to be false interpretations are also the ones being interpreted. I found this, which purports to be an interview with Richard Stallman. http://www.april.org/groupes/entretiens/rms.html [QUOTE MODE ON] RL : As I understand it, and let me know if I'm off, the GPL requires you to provide your patches if you publish a derived work the LGPL has the same requirement, but if you dynamically link (this would be good for libraries) your own linked source is not considered to be combined or derived? RMS : I wouldn I wouldn't use those words to describe the situation, because they aren't precise enough. But it is more or less accurate, for both the GPL and the LGPL, as you've said it. The LGPL was designed to permit linking with non-free software so it makes sense to permit various kinds of linking. The GPL was designed to forbid linking with non-free software so it is essential that this not depend on details such as the method of linking. [QUOTE MODE OFF] I also found this, which purports to be a quote from Richard Stallman http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-list/1998-March/msg00195.html [QUOTE MODE ON] Here is a quote from Mr. Stallman: There is no fundamental difference between static and dynamic linking, as regards the GNU GPL or the GNU LGPL. Our position is that if you link a GNU program into a combined program, no matter what kind of linking you use, you have to obey the terms of the GNU program in distributing the combination. I pointed out that to me that did not make sense because one does not have to link at run time with the LGPLed library, one could run with any library that provides the same API as is the case with Motif/Lesstif. He did not wish to address that issue however: You are raising a scenario in which (1) there is an API-compatible proprietary library that might be used in the same executable, and (2) no header files from the library are used. I would have to think more to come up with a position about that scenario; but it does not arise in practice as far as I know, so I don't need to think about it now. [QUOTE MODE OFF] Here http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/2001/12/cda6ea9c3d56923972cb13461fae31f4.en.html you may see where Richard Stallman specifically says he disapproves of Open Source Software. [snip] Incidentally, if I'm not mistaken, device drivers must link against the kernel library, which is GPL, and cannot use dynamic link. I'm sure there are those here who can comment on this. 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!
