On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:36:02 -0500 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Oh, then you don't understand the GPL. You can't share > anything unless the 'work as a whole' meets GPL terms. No, you don't understand it. If you're trying to distribute some 'work as a whole' that includes _other peoples GPL code_ then you're trying to distribute something you don't have a right to distribute unless you abide by the very liberal GPL license. You can't distribute a copy of MS Office without a proper agreement with MS either. > Conversely, how dare they demand what others do? You're getting really ridiculous here; all they demand is for the recipients they're _giving_ their software to, to respect some basic and very liberal rules. They're not demanding that anyone use GPL software or anything else. > Read it again. It isn't about use. Everyone can get their > own copy and use it any way they want. They just can't share > their work if that involves non GPL components. Read what I wrote again, I didn't say anything about use in the paragraph you're responding to. > No, I'm asking to distribute a copy of something that uses > an office DLL and API. Something that is encouraged and > benefits all concerned. Many libraries meant to be used in the way you describe are licenced under LPGL which works just fine for your example above. Of course MS wants everyone to depend on their Office DLL's, that means all those users have to run out and buy an expensive piece of software from them. That is _not_ an example of how the proprietary world enjoys more freedom than users of open source. > No, I want to be able to obtain things that others have > done to make existing components work together. And/or > share such work that I might do. Sigh, you do have that right. All you have to do is contribute those works back into the system. If you're unwilling or unable to do so, then you're not helping. And therefore there's very little reason for GPL authors to worry too much about your needs. For those that "get it" and are willing to contribute their work back to the community, this restriction you're so worried about doesn't even come into play at all. > No, I'm wishing they did not claim to control original work > done by others. They're not. If your work doesn't leverage their work that yours is based on, they have no claim against your original work. Nobody is forced to base their "original work" on GPL software. > It's good for some things legally. Not everything - and it > can't ever be. This is true of everything. Microsoft windows isn't good for everything, and it can't ever be. > Yes, I'm sure they have their agenda. But the overall effect > has been and will continue to be to increase the need for > proprietary software. I just don't see why anyone who isn't > involved in selling that software thinks this is a good thing. Man, we're talking past each other. I just can't comprehend how you can look at the __millions__ of lines of GPL code that we all benefit from and deduce that the entire basis of the GPL is flawed. Sean -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
