On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 01:56:05 -0500 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Maybe you haven't been exposed to the GPL very long. Do you > know the history of RIPEM and the reason the fgmp library > had to be written? It involved distributing original > code only, but code that needed to link against a > users own copy of a gpl'd library. Are there unfortunate legal circumstances within the GPL world? Absolutely. Does that mean everything is broken and should be changed. No way. There are a million counter examples of where people had no ability to use proprietary software _at all_, because the code they needed access to was hidden. Or where people paid big money to license some proprietary software that was completely wasted because the company that owned and supported the software went out of business. But if you really feel strongly about this issue, there is an entire world of BSD and other projects that don't share the GPL license available to you. The GPL is chugging along and performing quite well overall, achieving the things it set out to do. > It can't be done if that work involves combining with a work > already under someone else's licensing Yes it can, as long as that other person's license doesn't impose restrictions that are against the GPL. And if it does, then the GPL is doing its job of disallowing distribution of such a derived work. That seems quite reasonable. > But they do. See the RIPEM history for a good example of how > the FSF stopped the distribution of a free original work. The FSF can't stop the distribution of a free original work. They can comment on whether the GPL is being violated or not. Apparently in the above case, there was a license conflict between the original RIPEM license and the GPL. > How many patented operations are there where the patent has > not been given over for free public use? That's how many > things cannot ever be done by anything containing any GPL > components. The net result is that you have to use much > more proprietary code than would otherwise be necessary > and you will always have to. Patents expire, and patent laws can change. Perhaps if we weren't so busy beating up on the GPL we could pay more attention to reducing the number of inappropriate patents and lawsuits. That seems like a much more reasonable way to try to change the situation. > This isn't an issue with a simple workaround, like being > able to reverse-engineer someone else's copyrighted code. > I'd guess that Microsoft currently holds patents on features > needed for samba to function and could make distribution > illegal on a whim. And, even if they released the patent > for free use but on terms incompatible with the GPL it > would still be illegal to distribute samba. The lawyers have battled out the Samba case, and it appears to be legal even in the face of whatever patents MS may hold, at least in Europe. But I take your general point that there will sometimes be legal reasons why we can't have a GPL version of something. On the other hand there will sometimes be legal reasons why Microsoft can't implement something that the GPL does have. For instance, all of the RCU code in the Linux kernel has only been made available to GPL users. Any non GPL users can not implement that algorithm without paying IBM to do so. Win some, lose some. Sean -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
