On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 08:30 -0700, Peter Gordon wrote: > Les Mikesell wrote: > > Actually it is commercial vs GPL. [...] > The GPL specifically allows commercial redistribution. The > only restriction it contains is that the cost for a copy of > the source code cannot exceed the cost of the binaries sold. You apparently haven't actually read the GPL. Please note the parts that say you can't restrict further redistribution and that you can't redistribute at all unless the work as a whole meets the terms of the GPL. And in fact it doesn't say anything specific about the cost of the source, so I'm not sure what you did read... > > Many patented components that can't ever be combined with > > GPL'd code and legally distributed.... Consider what is > > in the media player alone. It is easy enough to add > > free components like OpenOffice or Cygwin to Windows, but > > how do you add device drivers with patented technology > > to Linux? > Software patents are a Bad Thing(TM). What we need to do is > strive to strike down such patent law and also encourage the > patent holders to grant an irrevocable, world-wide, royalty- > free license for any purpose imaginable on behalf of the > public so that all can benefit from its code. Yes, you might interpret the GPL advocates as being against the laws of our country. I'm not particularly interested in revolutionary activity today, though - I'd just like to stop having to pay Microsoft to be able to access devices that need proprietary drivers - and I believe that the GPL is prolonging the time that will be necessary even if it is an unplanned side effect. > (For example, > the Theora video codec is actually based on On2's patented > VP3, but they released all patent rights to it so that > anyone may use it for any purpose without such licensing > costs.) Let me know when studios start producing interesting content using that codec. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
