--- Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. BSD's use KDE/GNOME and other desktop environments which are released under GPL'd code. So without GPL code BSD's by themselves would not be where they are that either. Regards, Antonio > > > -- > Les Mikesell > lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx > > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
