On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 14:58, Sean wrote: > > Not at all. The proprietary component is available to anyone > > willing to meet its license requirments. If it is a commercial > > product, it is in the supplier's interest to make the terms > > attractive. If they aren't acceptable, there won't be any > > buyers. So let's assume the end users are happy with that > > part. > > But that's _exactly_ the same for the GPL. It's available to > anyone willing to meet its license requirements. No one is questioning its availability. Why don't you address the point that it restricts others ability to share their work? > > The original GPL'd part is not in question. Everyone is > > allowed to get their own copy of that. What I'm saying is > > that I cannot add work to that part and share my work > > with others if that work also involves different components. > > No one would be stealing anything. > > Just try to modify and distribute any proprietary software and > see if you end up in court or not. I am not talking about distributing proprietary software. There are plenty of ways to distribute proprietary software. I am talking about the work that combines GPL-covered work with another component. > You're demanding something > of GPL software that you're not demanding of proprietary software. > That's just silly. I'm not aware of any proprietary library that prohibits other software that links to it from being distributed to anyone else that has his own copy of the library in question. > > What problems? No one is forced to buy it or meet its > > license terms. They have the choice to do so or not. > > And there is no restriction against using the free software > > with it if everyone performs their own work to combine > > them. The restriction is that you can't share that > > work. > > No one is forced to use GPL software. They have the choice to do > so or not. Have you ever read the restrictions you agree to when > you accept a proprietary software license? The number of restrictions > on you is so far beyond the modest GPL restrictions it's not even > funny. None of which has anything to do with the issue being discussed. > > > You are missing the point. You can't do this because the > > GPL explicitly removes that freedom. > > You're missing the point that there are very good reasons for that > restriction and that it is a very minor restriction compared to those > that you're so willing to forgive the proprietary world. Well, they are good if you don't ever want free software to be a complete replacement for the current monopoly. > > The GPL is the part that carries the restriction and > > removes people's freedom. > > If you're not able to appreciate the difference in scale between > the relative loss of freedom between proprietary and open source software > there isn't much point in having a discussion. What discussion? You haven't addressed the issue. > > No, in fact it has probably done more to keep Microsoft in > > business that any other single thing because it's restrictions > > ensure that certain functions can never be added. > > If that were true, BSD would be ruling the world. Well, Apple is on a roll... > It doesn't have such > a restriction yet it is much less popular than Linux. You need to think > about why Linux is so much more popular. It has received an influx of work from commercial entities that understand the GPL's restrictions will keep anyone else from further improving that work and competing against them. But it's that further improvement that it needs to replace Microsoft. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
