Re: FC4 or FC5

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 01:56:05 -0500
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


> 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.

Are there unfortunate legal circumstances within the GPL world?
Absolutely.  Does that mean everything is broken and should be
changed.  No way.

There are a million counter examples of where people had no
ability to use proprietary software _at all_, because the code
they needed access to was hidden.  Or where people paid big money
to license some proprietary software that was completely wasted
because the company that owned and supported the software
went out of business.

But if you really feel strongly about this issue, there is an
entire world of BSD and other projects that don't share the GPL
license available to you.

The GPL is chugging along and performing quite well overall, achieving
the things it set out to do.

> It can't be done if that work involves combining with a work
> already under someone else's licensing

Yes it can, as long as that other person's license doesn't impose
restrictions that are against the GPL.  And if it does, then the
GPL is doing its job of disallowing distribution of such a derived
work.  That seems quite reasonable.

> But they do.  See the RIPEM history for a good example of how
> the FSF stopped the distribution of a free original work.

The FSF can't stop the distribution of a free original work.  They
can comment on whether the GPL is being violated or not.  Apparently
in the above case, there was a license conflict between the original
RIPEM license and the GPL.

> 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.

Patents expire, and patent laws can change.  Perhaps if we weren't
so busy beating up on the GPL we could pay more attention to reducing
the number of inappropriate patents and lawsuits.  That seems
like a much more reasonable way to try to change the situation.

> 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.

The lawyers have battled out the Samba case, and it appears to
be legal even in the face of whatever patents MS may hold, at least
in Europe.  But I take your general point that there will sometimes
be legal reasons why we can't have a GPL version of something.

On the other hand there will sometimes be legal reasons why Microsoft
can't implement something that the GPL does have.  For instance, all
of the RCU code in the Linux kernel has only been made available to
GPL users.  Any non GPL users can not implement that algorithm without
paying IBM to do so.   Win some, lose some.

Sean


[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux