On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:03:46 -0500 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > But, with less restricted code whatever the original authors > want to publish remains free and available regardless of what > anyone else does with it. The only net result of the GPL > is a reduction in the available choices. Someone can't add > a proprietary improvement and sell it for the incremental > difference. Which means I don't have the option to buy that. Sigh, you're so lost and confused that it's actually becomming entertaining. > That's just today's hot button. The point is that there is a > lot of other code around, some of it available under terms > an end user might find attractive, and none of it can be > used as an improvement to any GPL'd component. The end user has to live by the wishes of the software authors. If they want to use Microsoft software, they have to live with the financial costs of buying software. If they use GPL they have to live with its restrictions. > And where patents are involved the slowdown will be for the > life of the patent - or until someone contributes it to the > public. Yup, oh well. Just like Microsoft can't use any of the items that Red Hat and IBM hold the patents on. Sean
