> >> And because the GPL provides the anti-competitive means to keep others > >> from improving the product in ways you might like better without them > >> being able to offer it too. > > > > How is it anti-competitive to ensure in legal terms that everyone plays > > nicely with each other? Please let me know. > > It is the same as if Microsoft claimed that everything that linked to > any of their libraries belonged to them or could only be distributed on > their terms, even if the recipient already had their own copy of the > library itself. Microsoft doesn't give you access to their code, and doesn't expect full access to yours. Thing is, GPL explicitly states that you retain copyrights, so you dictate what you do with your code, so this is hardly an accurate example. The next section discusses this more... > >>> GPL is designed to EMPOWER users, to give the control BACK to the user. > >>> You should read the GNU Manifesto some time. > >> Technically, users are permitted to do anything they want - the > >> restrictions apply only to redistribution. However, most people don't > >> want to write all of their own code or couldn't even if they tried, so > >> for all practical purposes, the GPL simply limits what you can get. > > > > They can give the software to their friend, instill it on as many > > machines as they want - these are both things that effect EVERYONE. The > > other rights ensure longevity of the code, and extensive peer review, > > which betters the quality of the code... again, benefiting everyone. > > I agree with the benefits which is why it is a shame that the code can't > be used at all in many situations which require features under different > restrictions. The authors don't intend for it to be used that way. That is no different for any other distro, OS X includes such code also. Microsoft is the only IT company that doesn't utilize a single piece of GPL'd code. More in the next section... > > If I stole your credit cards, transferred the money to my account, and > > gave the card back, you wouldn't feel too good about that, would you? > > How about if I justified it saying "you can still use the card", would > > that make it ok? > > > > No, code is money. > > But using another copy of it does not take anything away that was there > before. Try another scenario that doesn't take anything away to see if > you can understand the real situation. How is it any different? What does that money represent? It represents the time you spent at work. It represents your time and effort. You still would have the card, just like the community would own the code still. I could take that money, and buy myself many things, just like Tivo created many devices. The authors of code written under the GPL want it used under the terms of the GPL, they don't want some corporation stealing it and them never getting any sort of notoriety or even a mention. In the Free Software world, corporations CAN'T take your code, it is illegal. If you find a loophole, it is their right to ensure they cover it in the next incarnation. If the programmer doesn't want to move his code to the new license, nothing forces him to. If you don't want to agree to use the code under the new license, you don't have to. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
