Re: FC4 or FC5

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

 



On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:01:57 -0500
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The communist label comes from the idea of forcing people
> to share things they otherwise wouldn't.  RMS may have set
> out to eliminate proprietary licenses but he hasn't accomplished
> that and there's no reason to think he will succeed.  And
> in fact the GPL only adds restrictions so rather than forcing
> people to share it prevents it it many cases.

Les, by now you should be able to spot just how stupid the
argument that the GPL forces people to share is.  The GPL doesn't
force anyone to share anything any more than anyone is forced to pay
Microsoft for their software.  People AGREE to share in exchange for
being able to use the original GPL software.  That is a fair EXCHANGE.
If you AGREE then you share, if you don't AGREE then don't share.

There is nothing communist about that.  Corporations sign contracts
that share things all the time.  For instance sometimes two companies
will sign a contract to share their respective patents.  No money
is exchanged, just access to each others patents.  The GPL is the same
sort of contract.  It is a FAIR EXCHANGE of one piece of work (the
original GPL software) for an AGREEMENT to share additional work
that springs from its extension and distribution.  This is a FAIR
AGREEMENT, nobody is FORCED to do anything.  Please try to understand
that.

> Well, no... It only harms small potential competitors to large
> software companies.  Large companies don't need to use
> any GPL'd components since they can afford to do everything
> from scratch and they can make arrangements to add any
> additional proprietary components that they can license.
> Small companies that would like to leverage free software
> to build better competing programs are prevented by the
> GPL from making those same arrangements for components
> under a different license.

The GPL is doing the job it set out to do.  If you can't use the
resulting software in the way that you want, tough!  You have
to AGREE to the contractual terms or you don't have a deal.

> Ummm, yeah... Microsoft is pissed all the way to the bank. RMS's
> work helped make one person the richest man in the world.

That is so utterly stupid you should be embarrassed to say it.
 
> There was a free software community before the GPL, and there
> still is.  Don't pretend that everyone has ever agreed that
> the GPL restrictions are a good idea - or that they ever will.

So what?  The GPL is a different sort of free software contract
that is very reasonable and works well for those that want to
only share their work with others who also agree to share.  There
is room for all these different types of licenses to exist.  Choice
is GOOD.

> No, just separate projects like the *bsd's which continue
> with their purpose that predates Linux, and projects like
> perl with licenses that no one can fault.

Great.  But that doesn't change anything at all for people that
want to choose the GPL.
 
> If you had read any of the postings, you should know that my
> complaint is that the GPL has done more than anything else to
> keep Microsoft in business and a monopoly.

And if you could follow a logical train of thought, you'd know
just how stupid your complaints are.
 
> I want to be able to buy such products, not sell them.
[...]
> Yes, and that means I have to keep buying from Microsoft.

You're free to do things as you wish.  Please allow others to do
as they wish.
 
[...]
> There is nothing evil about having choices among many proprietary
> offerings as well as whatever people have chosen to make freely
> available.  Consumers are perfectly capable of making their
> own choices.  The problem is when there is only one choice, and
> the restrictive GPL is a major factor in keeping it that way
> because it keeps the well tested code from being combined with
> components under different licenses to make new competitive
> products. 

Bullshit.  There is nothing evil about having choices among many
open source offerings as well as whatever people have chosent to make
available under a proprietary license.  Consumers are perfectly capable
of making their own choice.  Even when one of those choices is the GPL.
The GPL is NOT a major factor in reducing any competition.  If it was
so bloody awful then people would create an original work under a new
license and everyone would start using it; but that doesn't happen.

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