On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:03:36 -0500 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > No one is questioning its availability. Why don't you > address the point that it restricts others ability > to share their work? Huh? You can share _your_ work all you want. You can't share _other people's_ work unless you abide by _their_ license. See? If you create something from scratch, do as you wish. If your work only exists because it can leverage the work of other GPL authors, then how dare you demand the right to do whatever you want without respecting the wishes of the original authors. > 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 don't own the GPL software, therefore you have to abide by the license by which you obtain the right to use it at all. > 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. Try to take a copy of MS Office, modify it with some other proprietary license and then distribute the resulting work. That's what you're asking to do with GPL software. > None of which has anything to do with the issue being discussed. Huh? The issue being discussed is your desire to have more rights to GPL software than its authors saw fit to grant you. > Well, they are good if you don't ever want free software > to be a complete replacement for the current monopoly. That opinion doesn't hold up to scrutiny, Linux has succeeded to the measure it has today because of its license and the fact that it encourages developers to contribute to projects they don't own. A developer can release a GPL package and expect to get others that contribute code to his project to make it even better than what he could do by himself. > What discussion? You haven't addressed the issue. There is no issue beyond you wishing the authors of the software you're using gave you more rights than they did. You refuse to acknowledge just how many more rights they _did_ give you beyond what you get from proprietary vendors. > Well, Apple is on a roll... So is Linux. > 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. Lol, if you want to replace Microsoft, good luck to you. But don't expect the GPL authors to give up their code to be used in ways that doesn't contribute back to the improvement of their code. The GPL is working for most of them exactly like they intended it to. Sean
