On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:27:41 -0500 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > And if you would actually read any posting you would see > that's exactly what I said above. No, you continue to insist that GPL forces people to share. > Yes, it doesn't even encourage sharing compared to less restrictive > licenses - instead it prevents it in many cases. All it prevents is people distributing the GPL software in a way that the original author doesn't sanction. > Are you claiming that it's intent is to encourage anticompetitive > monopolies? I just assumed that was an accidental side effect. You seem unable to grasp very simple concepts. The purpose of the GPL is to enforce the wishes of the author of said software. Period. > Yet the 'work as a whole' clause involves others who have > no relationship to this agreement. Bullshit. If you have a dependency on GPL software, you have a relationship with 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. Your impression of the truth is so utterly skewed as to be verging on mental impairment. You know the list of GPL software, feel free to raise any examples you wish. So far, your examples have lacked a compelling point and have been filled with incorrect assumptions. > 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. It removes choice from people who don't want to agree. The same way someone who doesn't want to pay Microsoft has their "choice" removed. If you don't want to pay Microsoft you don't have the choice of using their software. Big deal. You seem to be a communist. You think you deserve to use GPL software. You think you should have access to it because it's "community owned" property. You don't own the software. The original author does. Stop your communist ways please. > 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. People have a choice. They can agree to the terms of the GPL or they can choose not to. You want the choice to steal the work of the original author. That is the kind of thinking that works in a communist society, not in a democratic free market society. > 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 provides a competitive choice. The fact that you can't understand that and want to invent this notion that you should be given the right to use the software others produced any damn way you choose is a communistic principle and has nothing to do with our free market principles. > Examples of the Window competition based on GPL code, please... People using Linux who aren't using Windows. That removes a customer from Microsoft and is real competition. > 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. Perhaps you don't understand why Windows is still around even with the BSD's in existence. Perhaps you don't understand why newspapers are still around since radio and why radio is still around since television. It's because CHOICE is good, and there's no reason for one choice to remove another. Sean
