Re: FC4 or FC5

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 09:09 -0700, Peter Gordon wrote:

> > Yes and we all use them.  Your linux distribution contains
> > much bsd/mit/apache/perl licensed code - licenses that do
> > not restrict competition and additional improvements and
> > have resulted in many useful products.
> So you think that the GPL does limit competition then?

Absolutely.  On the one hand this encourages companies like
RedHat and IBM that make their money on selling services and
hardware to pour resources into it knowing that someone
else can't improve it in a way that would compete against
them, but on the other hand it means the end user won't
be able to get that improved product.

> I strongly disagree with you. I'd say that the BSD/MIT-style copyright licenses
> serve only to *hinder* competition, in that other people can use the code and
> make a proprietary derivative of it;

Thus producing more choices...

>  whereas competition among GPL-licensed
> code means that they can all share their code with and borrow code from one
> another, which means that they would therefore be (in theory) about
> feature-equivalent

No, this means certain things can't ever be included. 

>  and would need to continuously prove their superiority to
> potential users and developers in other ways (such as: What is the quality of
> the codebase? What attention is paid to proactive security?

I don't see how the license has any bearing at all here.  Can you give
an example of Linux vs. (say) one of the *BSD's where using the GPL
matters in this regard.  

> > Yes, preventing many similar useful products.
> Please name one specific product example that has been prevented from being
> marketed and/or sold by the GPL.

An OSX like system, complete with drivers for all hardware and other
licensed components along with a GPL'd kernel.

> > Like you said earlier - laws can change,   And there are places
> > besides Europe.
> As I understand it, it (Samba) was reverse-engineered strictly for the
> purposes of interoperability. This is considered fair, and is legal under
> international copyright law.

Copyrights and patents are very different approaches.  Microsoft has
not chosen to enforce any patent protection against samba yet but
that doesn't mean they can't or won't.

-- 
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx


-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux