Re: nvidia

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

 



On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 12:56 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Les wrote:
> 
> >>>>> Les' mission is to save us from the evils of GPL license.
> 
> > There are several "les"s on this list.  I would like to be referred to
> > as Lesh to help all of 
> 
> Yes, I was going to point out that I haven't been in the Navy and was 
> probably confused with one of the others in that respect.
----
I think that was Ricky suffering from flash back.
----
> 
> Regarding the GPL, though, it is all a matter of religion.  Mine is that 
> making something deliberately not interoperate with something else, 
> whether by refusing to publish an interface spec, refusing to use 
> standard protocols, or licensing in such a way that interoperation (or 
> distributing working components together)is prohibited will harm random 
> people and is thus pure evil.
----
you are of course calling the Linux kernel evil - notwithstanding that
the intent was always to restrict the ability of commercial interests so
that the source and the endless improvements upon always remained
available to all users. Of course this is unlike something like a BSD
license which permits absorption and further development without any
requirement to release their improvements.

You are entitled to your opinion though
----
> Licensing in ways that have a cost per instance or per user may be 
> moderately evil but that still lets people make their own choices based 
> on individual merits. Taking that choice away is pure evil.
----
Curious perspective...the only problem that I have with this is your
characterization itself.
----
> For standalone programs the GPL doesn't necessarily have these evil 
> effects.  For things that should be usable in cooperative efforts but 
> can't because of license restrictions, it does.  There's no accounting 
> for religions, though, and no doubt others believe the harm is justified 
> by something or other.
----
Seeing as how the entirety of the Linux kernel is GPL license and to
change now would require a complete abandonment of the current kernel
code and start from scratch, your point - however it might be made is
entirely moot. The license chosen for Linux kernel development was of
course Linus's and others who contribute code to the kernel are
necessarily bound by the GPL license and of course, they can choose not
to contribute code.

Of course the thing that makes your rich is also the thing that makes
you poor and vice versa. The Linux kernel code, like all GPL license
code, will always be available to continue, fork, examine, etc. and
commercial enhancement of GPL code must necessarily be released in
source as required...I feel rich.

Craig

-- 
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