On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 07:51:55 -0500 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > So we finally agree on something. Now, having said that, > doesn't it seem that you should be able to use as little > of the proprietary parts as possible? The GPL, by excluding > them at the component level forces all 'works as a whole' > to be proprietary or at least all non-GPL if any part of Naw, i'm quite happy to follow the wishes of the authors. They created the programs i'm using, it seems only fair that I keep my end of the agreement (1). > its functionality is covered by a patent. I still don't > understand why you think it is a good thing that GPL > components can't be used at all in these situations. For pretty much the same reason you said you wished that the workarounds had never existed in the first place. It creates the wrong impression and removes incentives for alternatives. Sean (1) of course there is nothing in the GPL actually preventing me from doing any of that, i'm just not allowed to distribute the result if it legally conflicts with the GPL.
