On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:23 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> 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. > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > > 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. > The hard work is done by the original author. So if I understand you correctly, its ok with you if i use your code, improve it, and relicense it so what you freely contributed is now going to cost you money. So your hard work now belongs to someone else. Max -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
