On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 14:44 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > Microsoft can make any arrangement they want to license existing third > party components and include them with their own works and can thus > provide any functionality they think a consumer wants. A potential > competitor can take BSD licensed code and do the same, making it > easier for a company without Microsoft's resources to develop a good > competitive product. However, many of the needed components can never > be released under GPL terms because they are already patented by > others or the best implementation is under someone else's copyright. > The terms required to license these components may be perfectly > acceptable to the end user but if they don't specifically match the > GPL, the 'work as a whole' clause prevents any GPL'd code from being > used. So paradoxically, the end user can separately obtain all the > parts, but is prevented by the GPL from having a working combination > distributed to him. So, all the work that has gone into GPL'd code is > wasted in terms of helping build competitive products that need > additional components under other terms. Ah, I see. You are looking at the world from an economic view based on the Industrial Revolution, some 100 years ago. You are still mistakenly looking at software and computer applications as products. This is the same misguided view that is driving the RIAA and MPAA to pass laws that make file sharing punishable by fines and prison time far in excess of that for which sabotaging a nuclear reactor would receive. If the reality were as you see it then there would be no Google. No LotR trilogy. No Pathfinder & Sojourner missions to Mars. Linspire and XandrOS wouldn't have even been a dream. The Roger Maris Cancer Institute would not have been able to care for the 25 (or so) beds it had. The Virginia Electric and Power Company would not have one of the best anti-power failure system in the US. There are more examples than you have arguments against the GPL. Software is a service, not a product. If the proverbial you want to compete against Microsoft you would avail yourself of the wealth of open source software, including GPL'ed software, to build your system or application. Using gcc and all the other GPL'ed dev tools will in no way put your code anywhere near a GPL license. Plus there's a plethora of code that is under the LGPL for which you can, in fact, insert directly into your code and STILL not have to think about GPL'ing your software. The fact is that Microsoft sees thew GPL as the one and only thing that could break their monopoly. This isn't just a wish, it's a fact for which you can find innumerable web links to confirm (just ask google). If the TCP/IP stack had been GPL'ed Microsoft Windows would never have been able to join the Internet. How many companies or products has Microsoft destroyed over the years? PC Tools, Norton, Stacker, Digital Research... There are more than I can remember. Now, before you classify me as "just another GPL/FSF zealot," I want to emphasize that I am not a huge fan of the GPL. What little software I have ever done, none of it has been GPL'ed (I usually release it into the Public Domain). However, that is simply because I am lazy. There is nothing restrictive about the GPL from the viewpoint of the user or developer. Only closed, proprietary business models will find it annoying because closed, proprietary systems and applications will not be able to profit from the work of others without giving them due compensation. The only people who think that the GPL is in any way restrictive, viral, anti-competitive, not open and non-free are those who do not understand the GPL. I have been listening to the same arguments that you are making (with the exception of the "GPL helping MS"; man I need some of what you've been smoking) for going on 15 or so years now. Everyone, and I mean _EVERYONE_ of those making them had no understanding of the license. When they did take the time to learn what the GPL really means they always rethought their position. That's not to say they all became GPL converts. There's still plenty of times when the GPL isn't the best option. But to think that it is in anyway more dangerous than closed, proprietary licenses is incomprehensible to those who actually understand what they are talking about. As you do not understand what the GPL is, it is fruitless in discussing it's merits and shortfalls with you. I am going back to trying to get my FC4 laptop with it's fsck'ed up Combo CD-RW/DVD drive upgraded to FC5. Unless you know where I can get an eMachine's laptop fixed. Otherwise I bid you adieu. -- Joe Klemmer <klemmerj@xxxxxxxxxxx> -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
