On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 10:44, Sean wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 12:25:21 -0500 > Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > And how does that relate to this situation? Assume you have a > > proprietary library that communicates with some particular > > device. Perhaps patented technology is involved so there is no > > way to legally duplicate the functionality. You do some work > > to make a useful GPL program use that library to work with your > > device. You'd like to share that work with others who also > > have the same device and library. The GPL restricts you from > > legally doing so. > > Hah! What a confused piece of logic that is. The thing that > is really restricting you is the patented priprietary library! No. Nothing in most proprietary licenses restrict them being linked into programs containing parts with other licenses. The thing that restricts this is the GPL. Your statement is patently false. > Yes the GPL restricts you from stealing the work of others; it's > a Good Thing. Why the hell should a technology that has all > the proprietary/patent problems you describe above get the > benefit of working with any free software? That's the point > of the GPL, either you give back, your you don't get to play. Why should a *user* who owns a proprietary widget not benefit from having that widget *and* also benefit from free software? The answer is that the GPL won't allow it. It's notable that said user will likely not understand this and so conclude that free software is crap because it won't work with his widget. That other OS works just fine! > If you're locked into some proprietary POS that RESTRICTS YOU > then that's your problem, not the problem of the GPL. The GPL > is meant to foster the relationship between people who participate > in open software. It's working quite well at doing just that. >From the standpoint of an end user, it's unfortunate to have to choose between: 1 Using GPL'd software that he prefers, and 2. Using the widget that he prefers. Again, it's not the video card in my laptop that restricts me. It works just fine. It's the GPL'd software that restricts me by not working with my video card. It can't because the GPL says so. Please don't misunderstand. I don't have any real problem with the GPL. It's just a license. That's ok. I do, however, see quite a few GPL evangelists running about with a see-no-evil approach to their preferred license. Stop for a moment and realize that, while the GPL may have some real advantages, it also has some disadvantages. Pointing out those disadvantages is not heresy.
