Alan Cox wrote:
Sorry, I just don't understand the concept of _wanting_ to prevent the
distribution of improved versions of code and keeping others from having
it, while at the same time claiming it is free.
Its really very simple. The GPL requires you provide any contributions
under a licence that makes them free.
You mean restricted, don't you?
Without this the trend would be for
every driver to be non-free, then charged for and then there would be no
Linux.
You mean there could be something better than Linux, otherwise there
would be no reason for Linux to go away. That's the part I don't
understand. Why don't you want to give the world a chance to have
something better? Any why assume that it would necessarily be charged
for? There are plenty of examples of non-GPL'd code that is freely
available and no evidence that it can't stay that way.
Freedom is an active not a passive thing.
Restrictions are active, I guess. Preventing innovation is active.
As to BSD code - the BSD licence specifically permits people to create
GPL only derivatives - so that is hardly hijacking.
It is not illegal, but it takes code that permits future innovation and
turns it into something that restricts it, harming everyone in the
process. So I still call it hijacking.
It may be neccessary
to stop a third party then producing binary only non-free improvements
and destroying the freedom.
What? Competition is a good thing, and necessary for freedom and
innovation. Preventing it is an act of restriction, not freedom.
Inaction does not create freedom.
Nor does preventing innovation and competition.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
