On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 11:37, Sean wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:18:09 -0700 > "Alan M. Evans" <ame1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. > > Naw, unfortunately you're wrong. The point is that patent/proprietary > licenses reduce your freedom to use a technology. It's the open > source software that gives you the most freedom. > > There is nothing in the GPL that prevents you from linking with > proprietary libraries. What it restricts is distributing a combined > product that uses the free software without giving anything back. > You see? It's about preventing the theft of free software by those > who would give nothing back, just take. Egad. I don't want to be sucked into a shouting match. *sigh* Once more into the breach... Your hyperbole is giving away your bias. I never said anything about not giving *any* thing back. But I can't give back what I don't have. And what I don't have is source to the object code for many hardware drivers. Sure, I can take proprietary objects, combine them with GPL objects and add some code of my own to produce a final product. I can even "give back" by licensing my own code GPL. But I can't take that product and deliver it to a customer who may be paying me to give them a final solution, because *that* is distribution. It doesn't matter if I have a proper license do distribute the proprietary objects; the GPL says, "No." >From the perspective of the user, distribution and use are the same thing. This is because the user doesn't write software. He has to pay some developer to write it for him and then distribute it to him. The average machinist doesn't know or care what a compiler is. Most don't have a strong idea about what software is. All they know is that they need it to make their $50,000 laser engraver work. He is not going to understand when the developer tells him that he needs to get the drivers for the vision system separately. And the drivers for the inverters separately. And the drivers for the controller separately. Why? Because the developer decided to "give back" to the "community" and use GPL software for some part of the system. Users are often not themselves developers. They rely on distribution to use their systems. If the GPL developer can't deliver an easy (for the user) solution, then the user will find another developer who can. That other developer is able to deliver a complete solution because he is not using any GPL components. > > 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. > > No, you're wrong again. A *user* is free to do whatever they want. The > GPL only restricts distribution, not use. > > > 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! > > Perhaps some education is needed. > > > 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. > > Tough! This is about protecting the interests of the people that created > the software. GPL software isn't meant as a free-ride-for-all, it's about > providing great software for use by like-minded-people. As I said in > my first email, the stated restriction is a very Good Thing. Even if > it causes some people to bellyache that they're not getting enough of a > free ride. I never said anything about a "free ride." I'm quite happy to give back *my* work to the community. What I can't do is give back somebody else's work. In the case of users who know nothing of the software that they use (most users), the GPL makes giving them a working solution unnecessarily difficult when that solution must involve proprietary parts. > > 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. > > That's just bullshit. You're freedoms are much more restricted by the > video card producers than any GPL software. Yet somehow you're blind to > it. > > > 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. > > I don't have a problem with the GPL or with proprietary licenses either. > However i do see many many more evangelists running about with a see-no-evil > approach for proprietary licenses. Stop for a moment and realize that, while > proprietary licenses may have some real advantages, they also have some > disadvantages. Pointing out those disadvantages is not heresy. And that was pointless. It's apparently too late for reason when the politics of personal morality enter into it.
