On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 16:15, Sean wrote: > 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? Oh, then you don't understand the GPL. You can't share anything unless the 'work as a whole' meets GPL terms. > 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. Conversely, how dare they demand what others do? > > 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. Read it again. It isn't about use. Everyone can get their own copy and use it any way they want. They just can't share their work if that involves non GPL components. > > 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. No, I'm asking to distribute a copy of something that uses an office DLL and API. Something that is encouraged and benefits all concerned. > > 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. No, I want to be able to obtain things that others have done to make existing components work together. And/or share such work that I might do. > > 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. No, I'm wishing they did not claim to control original work done by others. > > Well, Apple is on a roll... > > So is Linux. It's good for some things legally. Not everything - and it can't ever be. > > 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. Yes, I'm sure they have their agenda. But the overall effect has been and will continue to be to increase the need for proprietary software. I just don't see why anyone who isn't involved in selling that software thinks this is a good thing. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
