You're not getting it, so this will be my last reply to you... On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 23:23 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > Francis Earl wrote: > > >> 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. > > Everyone can get their own access to the MS code, and they make no > claims on yours. NO ONE gets access to Microsoft code, unless you happen to be a government agency, and sign an NDA... > > 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 FSF claims you can't distribute code you've written yourself under > your own terms if it links to a GPL'd library at runtime. My example > was exactly that scenario. I think that would get MS a lawsuit for > anticompetitive behavior, although Apple will probably get away with it > for a while with their iphone development kit. Yes, and people that release code under that license with it to used under those terms. > >> 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, > > The *bsd's do not place such restrictions on their code, so don't claim > that everyone does. I was referring to the authors of GPL'd code. > > OS X includes such code also. Microsoft > > is the only IT company that doesn't utilize a single piece of GPL'd > > code. > > There are some programs that can be feature-complete without including > patented technology or code under other restrictions. And some can't be. I'm not sure why you took the time to state this... > >>> 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? > > How is software different than money? Making a copy can be legal and > takes away nothing from the original. It takes away plenty, the author of GPL software didn't intend for you to use their code to benefit only yourself... you are stealing from them their hard work. > > What does that money represent? It represents > > the time you spent at work. It represents your time and effort. > > All of which you still have, regardless of what others do with other copies. So if you give me $300 to buy you a plane ticket in trust, and I spend it at the strip club, I did nothing wrong? Same thing, I'm not using the money how you intended it to be used, but it was spent... > > 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. > > Which is a bizarre thing to be concerned about because the only thing > they could possibly do to diminish the value of the original copy would > be to improve it so much that no one would want the original. As a > potential user of that improved version, I think that restriction is a > bad thing. And most bizarre of all is the notion that I can't obtain my > own copy of a GPL'd library, and someone else's code under their own > terms separately. Yes, it's bizarre to want to control your code and only have it benefit people of like mind. If the resulting work is so different, replace everything, and release it under your own terms. There are plenty of corporations dual licensing too, you just have to be smart about how you design the work. > > If you find a > > loophole, it is their right to ensure they cover it in the next > > incarnation. > > By a loophole, do you mean something that would allow improved versions? Yes, under terms the author of that code didn't want. Maybe you think writing an application is a simple undertaking? It's not... I challenge you to even learn Python, and write a useful application in PyGTK... see how long it takes you. Maybe then you'll have some appreciation for the work of others, especially when you consider just how much more difficult C is compared to Python. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
