From: "Les Mikesell" <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>
On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 21:26, Sean wrote:
> Please research the history of RIPEM and the reason the fgmp
> library exists. This was an attempt to make a free distribution
> that used, but did not include, the gpl'd gmp library and did
> include some code under a different license. The FSF used
> legal threats to stop distribution. Nothing has changed
> in their interpretation since then in spite of the bad press
> they got from interfering with another free project.
You refuse to acknowledge your incorrect assumptions once again.
If my assumptions were incorrect I wouldn't have bothered
posting them.
Begging the question - WHEN was your set of assumptions conclusively
proven correct? {^_-}
The RIPEM project linked to a GPL library. If it didn't want to
obseve the rules of the GPL it shouldn't have linked to a GPL
library. It's very simple to understand if you happen to not
have a mental impairment.
There is nothing simple about the concept that code
written to use a library becomes controlled by that
library's owner - and I'll repeat for anyone who missed
it the first time - they did not distribute the covered
library at all. The concept really only exists in
the FSF's imagination but they aren't afraid to use
legal threats that would be too expensive for anyone
to contest.
This is basically right. And with the way our laws are structured
in this country two people at odds in court do not face "fair" in
any manner. (Otherwise the two OJ trial verdicts would make sense.)
FSF has more resources than a single person developer. Therefore
they can do what Las Vegas does, break the opposition before the
opposition has a chance to win. If the terms of licenses in the
case were adjudged fairly in a court of law I think a good third
to half of GPL would get tossed as would at least that much of
the Microsoft licenses and practices. In both cases the big guy
drives the little guy to bankruptcy or paying extortion money in
self defense. I'd like to see a law that declares the loser in
who gets a judgement against him saying that his case should never
have been seen in court because it has no merits other than vacuous
lawyerly pleadings falls under Rico and has to pay triple damages
to the winner.
Yes, people are free to release their code under the LGPL when
that is appropriate. But when they release it under the GPL
you have to AGREE to the terms or go elsewhere.
You only have to agree to the terms to distribute copies.
An end user with his own copy does not have to agree
to anything. He just finds that different code from
other parties can't be distributed to him.
Which is a crock. A published interface is a laundry list or a
telephone book list, open to anybody anywhere at anytime as long
as you do not distribute the shared library with your code. In an
honest court that would stand, IMAO. In US courts with a small
developer like me and a foundation that can afford to pay actual
salaries to people like RMS and lawyers guess who'd win regardless
of the merits.
{^_^} Hence Joanne stays out of GPLed markets except for small
bits of hobby code. They elect to do what they want. The
users elect to accept those terms. I elect to keep my
material private and "scroom." I am not a charity.
