On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:40:42 -0500 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 09:50 -0400, Sean wrote: > It is the FSF's interpretation that anything that needs a GPL'd > library to function is a derived work of that library even when > distributed separately . I'm sure that with sufficient funds > you could find well-trained lawyers to argue either side of > that case, but it sounds like insanity to me that you can violate > a copyright without copying the material in question. Or that > whether a violation exists or not depends on whether or not a > functionally equivalent library exists under a different license, > something that none of the parties involved might not know and > that could change without their involvement or knowledge. Well it makes sense to me that if you're building a program that relies on a library, that it is a derived work of that library. But i'm not a lawyer. > The point is that unless all parties that ever contributed can > be identified and agree, the GPL can't be revoked so if there > are ever any constraints on needed components, none of that > work can ever be distributed - even for end users that agree to the > terms of the component in question. This is very much different > from a corresponding situation with proprietary software where > you can make your own choices and arrangements with any vendor > separately. Not if the vendor is out of business. Not if the vendor doesn't want to talk to you. Not if that vendor has other licensing arrangements that prohibit them from offering you a license etc etc etc. There's no sense in pretending that a proprietary license is some panacea. There are _way_ fewer choices with a proprietary license than there are with the GPL. You have the source code to do what you want, you don't need anyone else permission to do anything at all, unless you're trying to distribute a derived work. > Why would anyone price something at a point where no one would > buy it? Its possible, of course, but competition takes care of > that issue. Our big problem is permitting a monopoly to eliminate > competition, and the GPL has played a big part in helping that > to happen and continue. No, the GPL has fostered competition and kept Microsoft honest. Microsoft would quite likely be using much stronger bullying tactics if there wasn't Linux and other GPL software keeping them scared right now. > If you have read any of what I have said so far you would realize that > the problem I'm point out is that GPL'd work cannot be used in many > situations. Obviously I do like free software and would like more > of it to be usable in more situations. Since your solution always > seems to be "don't use GPL'd software" I guess you don't agree. Yes, there are times when GPL software isn't available. Usually that's by design, the authors that placed the work under GPL intended it to be unavailable to people who don't want to abide by the terms of the GPL. To me that's a good thing and builds incentive into the system for people to give their improvements back to the authors that created the work in the first place. However, there are many many more instances where proprietary software is unavailable to people. Which is why I don't really understand your complaint against GPL software. It provides so much more availability and freedom than proprietary software does. Proprietary software might not be available if a company goes out of business for example, or if they have an exclusive license with another company or about a million other reasons. I don't understand where you get this idea that says proprietary software is more available than GPL software. Sean
