On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 16:55, Sean wrote: > > Oh, then you don't understand the GPL. You can't share > > anything unless the 'work as a whole' meets GPL terms. > > No, you don't understand it. If you're trying to distribute > some 'work as a whole' that includes _other peoples GPL code_ > then you're trying to distribute something you don't have a right > to distribute unless you abide by the very liberal GPL license. Maybe you haven't been exposed to the GPL very long. Do you know the history of RIPEM and the reason the fgmp library had to be written? It involved distributing original code only, but code that needed to link against a users own copy of a gpl'd library. > > 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. > > Sigh, you do have that right. All you have to do is contribute > those works back into the system. It can't be done if that work involves combining with a work already under someone else's licensing. > > No, I'm wishing they did not claim to control original work > > done by others. > > They're not. But they do. See the RIPEM history for a good example of how the FSF stopped the distribution of a free original work. > > 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. > > Man, we're talking past each other. I just can't comprehend how > you can look at the __millions__ of lines of GPL code that we all > benefit from and deduce that the entire basis of the GPL is flawed. How many patented operations are there where the patent has not been given over for free public use? That's how many things cannot ever be done by anything containing any GPL components. The net result is that you have to use much more proprietary code than would otherwise be necessary and you will always have to. This isn't an issue with a simple workaround, like being able to reverse-engineer someone else's copyrighted code. I'd guess that Microsoft currently holds patents on features needed for samba to function and could make distribution illegal on a whim. And, even if they released the patent for free use but on terms incompatible with the GPL it would still be illegal to distribute samba. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
