On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:16:18 -0500 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I've never said that. Ever. Mea Culpa. > Yes, and it even makes sense in the situation where the main > author also sells a commercial version and uses the GPL to > prevent others from developing competing commercial versions > without releasing their improvements. It doesn't make sense > for anyone who actually wants their code to be used freely. Red Hat doesn't have a non GPL version of their products, yet they still manage to thrive. GPL software has very many freedoms associated with it, way more than most proprietary licenses. It is not _absolutely_ free though. Is that what you object to? The fact that it's not given away absolutely freely? Man, that really is communistic, someone who wants everything to be absolutely free without having to pay in some way. The GPL demands a modest form of payment for extensions + distribution. Such a great deal compared to a typical proprietary license! > There are many components needed for modern systems. Why should > the license on only one of them be able to affect to restrict the > 'work as a whole'? The license is very simple. The only thing it restricts is the terms you must follow if you want to distribute an extension to the GPL software you've received. > Yet even Microsoft does not claim to contol 3rd party components > that interact with their software. And they wouldn't get away > with it if they tried. Personally I don't think this aspect > of the GPL would survive a court challenge but I also don't > expect anyone to spend the money to test it. The GPL wouldn't get away with it if they tried either. Luckily that's not what the GPL tries to do. > You are confused. I'm just pointing out the paradox of > allowing end users to obtain components under the pretense > that they are free, yet restricting distribution of any > additions that also work with other components. That is, No, you are severly confused. There is no paradox. Nobody said that the GPL had a pretense of providing anything with absolute freedom. You have to AGREE to abide by the terms of the license. GPL != commune ownership. > I do deserve to use GPL software because the license > explicitly gives me the right to obtain it and does not > claim any contol over use. My complaint is that it claims > (though perhaps not legally so) to prohibit me from also > obtaining software that would combine its functions with > alternately-licensed software. There it is, *YOU DESERVE*. I'll just leave that hanging in the air for all to see without making a further comment. > The work that goes to extreme lengths to describe itself > as free... How could I possibly steal that? Remember, > I'm not interested in distributing software. My complaint > is about the things I can't obtain because of its restrictions. Freedom does not imply your ability to do anything you like. We live in a free society, do you think that means you're free to kill someone? You seize on the word freedom and you extend that into thinking that means you should absolute control over GPL software; that is just muddled. The GPL offers very many freedoms, but it doesn't offer absolute freedom. > Count me out from that example. I use Linux yet it hasn't > replaced Windows completely and isn't going to. Just because you don't include yourself in that list doesn't mean it doesn't exist. > The BSDs were involved in a legal battle at the time Windows > became a monopoly and much of the free software effort shifted > to Linux - unfortunately, in my opinion. OSX at least has a > shot at competing with Windows on most fronts. There are good reasons why the effort shifted to Linux, fortunately in my opinion. Sean
