On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:01:57 -0500 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The communist label comes from the idea of forcing people > to share things they otherwise wouldn't. RMS may have set > out to eliminate proprietary licenses but he hasn't accomplished > that and there's no reason to think he will succeed. And > in fact the GPL only adds restrictions so rather than forcing > people to share it prevents it it many cases. Les, by now you should be able to spot just how stupid the argument that the GPL forces people to share is. The GPL doesn't force anyone to share anything any more than anyone is forced to pay Microsoft for their software. People AGREE to share in exchange for being able to use the original GPL software. That is a fair EXCHANGE. If you AGREE then you share, if you don't AGREE then don't share. There is nothing communist about that. Corporations sign contracts that share things all the time. For instance sometimes two companies will sign a contract to share their respective patents. No money is exchanged, just access to each others patents. The GPL is the same sort of contract. It is a FAIR EXCHANGE of one piece of work (the original GPL software) for an AGREEMENT to share additional work that springs from its extension and distribution. This is a FAIR AGREEMENT, nobody is FORCED to do anything. Please try to understand that. > Well, no... It only harms small potential competitors to large > software companies. Large companies don't need to use > any GPL'd components since they can afford to do everything > from scratch and they can make arrangements to add any > additional proprietary components that they can license. > Small companies that would like to leverage free software > to build better competing programs are prevented by the > GPL from making those same arrangements for components > under a different license. The GPL is doing the job it set out to do. If you can't use the resulting software in the way that you want, tough! You have to AGREE to the contractual terms or you don't have a deal. > Ummm, yeah... Microsoft is pissed all the way to the bank. RMS's > work helped make one person the richest man in the world. That is so utterly stupid you should be embarrassed to say it. > There was a free software community before the GPL, and there > still is. Don't pretend that everyone has ever agreed that > the GPL restrictions are a good idea - or that they ever will. So what? The GPL is a different sort of free software contract that is very reasonable and works well for those that want to only share their work with others who also agree to share. There is room for all these different types of licenses to exist. Choice is GOOD. > No, just separate projects like the *bsd's which continue > with their purpose that predates Linux, and projects like > perl with licenses that no one can fault. Great. But that doesn't change anything at all for people that want to choose the GPL. > If you had read any of the postings, you should know that my > complaint is that the GPL has done more than anything else to > keep Microsoft in business and a monopoly. And if you could follow a logical train of thought, you'd know just how stupid your complaints are. > I want to be able to buy such products, not sell them. [...] > Yes, and that means I have to keep buying from Microsoft. You're free to do things as you wish. Please allow others to do as they wish. [...] > There is nothing evil about having choices among many proprietary > offerings as well as whatever people have chosen to make freely > available. Consumers are perfectly capable of making their > own choices. The problem is when there is only one choice, and > the restrictive GPL is a major factor in keeping it that way > because it keeps the well tested code from being combined with > components under different licenses to make new competitive > products. Bullshit. There is nothing evil about having choices among many open source offerings as well as whatever people have chosent to make available under a proprietary license. Consumers are perfectly capable of making their own choice. Even when one of those choices is the GPL. The GPL is NOT a major factor in reducing any competition. If it was so bloody awful then people would create an original work under a new license and everyone would start using it; but that doesn't happen. Sean
