On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 12:51, Sean 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. And if you would actually read any posting you would see that's exactly what I said above. > The GPL doesn't > force anyone to share anything any more than anyone is forced to pay > Microsoft for their software. Yes, it doesn't even encourage sharing compared to less restrictive licenses - instead it prevents it in many cases. > > 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. Are you claiming that it's intent is to encourage anticompetitive monopolies? I just assumed that was an accidental side effect. > 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. Yet the 'work as a whole' clause involves others who have no relationship to this agreement. > > 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. The truth hurts, ehh? If you can point out the existence of some GPL'd projects as your proof that it isn't horrible, then I can point out what *really* happened on RMS's watch. > > 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. OK, you have the idea right. Now you just have to understand how the GPL removes choices. The only alternative is to not use code covered by it. > > 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. Agreed, but people who want to improve a project have no choice about the license for their contribution if the original is GPL'd. The 'work as a whole' clause removes that choice. > > 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. I don't object to other's choices. However, I consider the real evil to be anticompetitive activity - taking away choices and alternatives, and I think many people have written code under the GPL without understanding how they were contributing to that or without having their own choice about the matter. You certainly don't understand it. > The GPL is NOT a major factor in reducing any competition. Examples of the Window competition based on GPL code, please... > 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. Perhaps you don't understand why the *bsd's are still around. Or why the project exists in the first place. It does happen and for good reasons that the GPL projects can't share. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
