Les Mikesell wrote: > On Sun, 2006-06-18 at 23:52, Sean wrote: > >> Choose whatever words you want if it makes you feel better. It's >> purpose is to keep away the people that don't want to play by the >> rules. It's working very well it seems. >> >> Anyone who disagrees with the GPL as much as you do should have the >> backbone to stand up and refuse to use GPL software. The fact that >> even you, a confirmed GPL hater uses GPL software shows just how >> good the GPL is. > > You continue to miss the point. The thing I dislike about the > GPL is that it prevents distribution of a large amount of > potentially useful software. That has no bearing on the > usefulness or my use of the subset that is permitted to > be distributed. > We get you point. But you are missing the point. Here is another way to look at it - GPL software comes with a price - if you want to distribute software based on GPL software, the price is sharing your source code. If you do not want to pay that price, that is fine. If you need a GPL (NOT LGPL) library, then you can ether comply with the license or use another library that has a license that you like. You will probably have to pay a different price for using that library, but the choice is yours. Now, if you are modifying GPL software, and want to distribute it, then you are stuck, unless you can get the copy write holders agree to let you use it on different terms. But that is the price the authors are charging to use their source. If it were a closed source program, you would have to buy the rights to use the source another way, if you could get the source at all. Now, if you really want something complain about, how about all the closed source software that can not be distributed because the company that wrote it went out of business, or was bought out by someone else that didn't continue the product? How often have you seen one software company buy out a competitor and take the completive product off the market? In the software market, having a good program is not enough - you also need a good business model. And you can still end up out of business because another company has the resources to see their product at a loss to build market share. Then again, if all software had a GPL-compatible license, the problem would be solved. So maybe you should redirect your efforts into convincing more hardware manufacturers into releasing open source drivers and getting more software released under GPL compatible licenses? Mikkel PS - I know that this is not the normal way of looking at GPL software, but maybe putting it in these terms will get the point across. -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
