On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 12:24:42 -0700 "Alan M. Evans" <ame1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I never claimed to be bias free, what does that matter? You clearly have a bias as well. And the fact that you don't have the source to many of your hardware drivers is just one way the proprietary world uses to reduce the number of options you have (ie. your freedom of choice). > 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." And the reason it says "No" has been explained. It's a very minor restriction, and of no consequence at all to those who actually want to participate. For those that don't want to abide by that minor restriction, so be it; but don't bellyache about it. > 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. The number of restrictions put on users of proprietary software outstrips those of the GPL by such a far degree as to make your remarks almost comical. You want to blame the GPL and unfortunately you have a lot of company that sees things just as cockeyed. > 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. Your bias is revealed yet again. You see a problem and you blame the GPL. But that's because YOU think the GPL should be something it is not. That's your problem. > And that was pointless. It's apparently too late for reason when the > politics of personal morality enter into it. Hello? Your politics and personal morality are just as much a part of this conversation as anyone elses. Such a comment is really a cheap tactic. Sean
