Francis Earl wrote:
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...
Their libraries are on the large majority of computers.
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.
There are no use restrictions claimed in the GPL. Yet the FSF claims
they can restrict the distribution of other people's 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...
Because that's what this whole thread is about. You seem not to have
understood a bit of it.
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.
It takes away nothing, and would be copyright violation instead of
stealing anyway. Except that the license gives you the right to get
your own copy.
> 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?
You are ignoring the fact that with software you can copy, you'd still
have the original regardless of what else you did, so you'd still be
able to get that ticket.
Same thing, I'm not using the money how you intended it to be used, but
it was spent...
Why would I have a problem with you doing something extra?
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.
That is bizarre, but not what I meant. The GPL already gives anyone the
right to get their own copy of the covered work. The FSF claim is that
others are prohibited from distributed their own works that happen to
call those libraries even if they don't include them.
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.
Maybe you are starting to understand why GPL'd code isn't usable in many
situations and thus forces everyone to deal with the monopoly. It still
doesn't make sense that you like it.
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.
My application writing days go back to DOS when I combined gnutar
(non-trivial because the code wasn't prototyped back then) with an aspi
scsi library and a network library so you could back up DOS and win 3.x
machines to local tape drives or over the network with the archive in a
standard format. I tried to give it away but was stopped because even
though the scsi/network code was freely available in source the license
was incompatible with the GPL.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
