Re: FC4 or FC5

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

 



On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:01:42 -0700
"Alan M. Evans" <ame1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


> I have not seen you even once even approach the actual criticism
> presented many times here. Instead, you keep redirecting to the "Don't
> use GPL'd software if you don't want to abide by the license" straw man.

Then you haven't been paying attention.  I've shown that the criticism
is often much overstated.  That the restriction is reasonable.  That it
services the needs of people who are happy with it.  That it protects the
interests of the authors who decided to use the GPL.  And that nobody
is forced to use it, ie. it doesn't remove choice from anyone.
 
> Here, then, is a criticism of the GPL *license*, not of software that
> uses the license, and not of authors that choose the license. It is the
> only license of which I am aware that seeks to control the behavior of
> developers with regard to what *other* licenses are used.

You focus in on this one aspect with which you disagree.  Yes, everyone
understands you disagree with that aspect of the GPL.  Other licenses
have _other_ restrictions which you happily ignore because they don't
bother you.

Yes the GPL has a restriction about how that software can be used.  Just
like every other license.  Get over it.

> By way of illustration, I am creating a program that uses five
> components:
> 
>   A: a GPL-licensed library
>   B: a LGPL-licensed library
>   C: a proprietary-licence library for which I have only object code,
> but rights to use and distribute
>   D: a BSD-licensed library
>   E: the main program that I wrote myself and may use/distribute any way
> I like
> 
> Only one of these licenses makes any stipulation about what the other
> licenses are. The rest are agnostic about *other* software; they cover
> only use and distribution of themselves. As long as I abide by those
> licenses, they may be mixed together freely. Licence B only demands that
> the distributor act accordingly with regard to B. Same with C, D, and E.
> 
> But License A is different in this respect. If I abide by the terms of
> the GPL then that license demands that all other components also abide
> by those terms.
> 
> In the GPL's reckoning, the proprietary library is a derived work of the
> GPL library. It doesn't matter that the GPL library is for TCP
> networking and the proprietary library is for low-level access to a
> video chip. This is the loosest definition of "derived work" that I can
> imagine.

Often a BSD license will demand that you include an "advertising clause".
You have to comply with that license.  Often you won't even have a piece
of proprietary software available because its license gives you no rights
to use it.  You keep focusing on this one little restriction made by
the GPL like it's the end of the world.  It's just a restriction, no
different than the restrictions made by other licenses.  You seem to
really object to it, but what can I tell you, people who are happy
with the GPL don't object to it and don't see a need to change anything.
 
> And yet you call it "a confused piece of logic" to point out that it is
> the GPL that is not integrating well here. C didn't tell the developer
> that he couldn't use A, it was A that said he couldn't use C.

Yes, it is a confused piece of logic.  The GPL doesn't demand that you
integrate it with other software.  It's not compelling you to integrate
other software.  Once you decide to try to integrate other software
you have to live with the reality that the respective licenses may not
mix.  

Now you want to say that the only way to fix the situation is to change
the GPL.  I say there is another way, that is to change the license
of the piece of software you want to integrate to GPL.  But whatever the
case, if you can't manage that then there is a conflict and you can not
proceed.  Oh well.
 
> In the real world, developers often don't have a choice about C. But
> they do have a choice about A. It's unfortunate that developers that
> might otherwise support free software any way they can end up not being
> able to at all.

In the real world people are constrained by many thing.  The constraints
of the GPL are quite reasonable compared to the constraints imposed by
many other factors.

Sean

-- 
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