Andy Green wrote:
Is there something unique about the linux kernel that should matter to
me? It is a convenient place to run X, apache, sendmail, perl, nfs,
java, firefox, openoffice, etc. and I use it because it has hijacked
much driver and kernel development that might have gone into the
*bsd's otherwise. But I'll turn your comment around and point out
that Linux
But your complaints centre on Linux and the GPL.
In particular the GPL's restriction against being combined with anything
with any different restrictions. And on the refusal of Linux to present
a stable driver interface with clearly defined copyright boundaries.
wouldn't exist without the design and specification of the original
proprietary version of unix, and those other applications wouldn't
exist without their original proprietary host OS's and in many cases
their own proprietary versions. If you are going to pay homage to the
development
You should turn it around a little further: Linux wouldn't exist as it
is without the GPL, because the same set of contributors and the same
ecosystem would not have formed.
Perhaps their work would have gone into something less restricted and
helped people in many more ways like apache and java have.
> When you compose your complaints about
the downstream effects of the GPL limiting what can be bundled, you
should consider effect #0: it gave you the thing in the first place.
But, it doesn't, and probably can't replace the other things I use and
its components can't be used to help make them all interoperate.
People did a lot of work and gave you the result for free so you would
have something to complain about.
If someone gives you something that isn't what you want, how grateful
can you be? I'm grateful for the BSD TCP work that, since it could be
used without restrictions, permitted the development of an interoperable
internet instead of isolated islands of SNA, DECnet, IPx, NetBUI,
Appletalk, etc. Had such an innovation been GPL'd it would have just
become 1 more protocol that only a few things could use instead of
being able to help everything interoperate.
That is what should be acknowledged.
It doesn't mean falling to your knees and weeping. But instead of
acknowledging it, which should be easy enough since the evidence is all
around you, you find yourself reaching into the GPL and picking out a
specific feature of the license to complain about in response
instead[1]. Your point is that this license feature means they didn't
do all that work and give it to you for free?
My point is that the work can't be used in many ways. It's being free
doesn't keep me from having to buy other OS's - and its code can't even
be used to help improve those other OS's. I appreciate whatever
components that came from freebsd that help make OS X reliable and if
windows has included some to finally make its networking stable, so much
the better - those things help everyone who has to co-exist.
No, it means you have a
problem acknowledging that you are the recipient of their kindness,
because doing so puts the complaints in a different, more holistic light.
Yes, I have a problem acknowledging that there is anything kind about
placing absolute restrictions on how code may be combined and redistributed.
In practice it does typically mean that unless the patent is used in
crosslicensing horsetrading, it won't be granted in a redistributable
way for $0: because then why bother with a patent. So patents
inherently stand against free and freely redistributable software like
Fedora, GPL or no GPL. The content rightsholders that will leverage
that by patented codec choice stand against it too: why reward that with
your money.
I'm more interested in software that is affordable and correct than in
being able to redistribute copies. If the price is right, it doesn't
have to be $0. My complaint is simply that there is no way to include
any GPL'd components as part of such a thing, so it can't help with the
affordability or correctness.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
