On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 08:10:26 -0500 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yes and we all use them. Your linux distribution contains > much bsd/mit/apache/perl licensed code - licenses that do > not restrict competition and additional improvements and > have resulted in many useful products. The point is that you're not force to use Linux or other GPL software. Since you must know that the GPL isn't going to change, why not use a BSD flavor or other OS that doesn't use any GPL software at all? > Yes, preventing many similar useful products. Creating much useful software that is available to people who might otherwise not have access to it. > They claim that distributing a program that uses a gpl'd library > is a copyright violation even if it does not include the library > in the distribution. There is no other way to describe that > besides stopping the distribution of another person's original > work. No, that is a legal determination. It would seem that legally the "original work" of which you speak is actually a derived work. But I don't know the specifics. > Like you said earlier - laws can change, And there are places > besides Europe. What's your point? That there _might_ be a law that might cause a legal problem for someone using Linux? Sorry, but that's true for just about anyone using anything. > Having to pay doesn't automatically prevent someone from using > something. It just is another factor in your choices. The GPL > restrictions simply take away your choices. Well, IBM might not even be willing to license that technology to anyone, or maybe would do so at a prohibitive cost that effectively makes it unavailable to anyone else, removing it as a practical choice. BTW, the GPL doesn't take choice away from anyone. Nobody is forced to base their work on a GPL library or other GPL software. And obviously it can't be all that bad... you use GPL software! That's an endorsement the belies your words. Sean
