Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
But you must give up your freedom and rights or you are unable to
participate in distributing these things as part of a work that
contains any GPL-covered material.
The "or" denounces your syllogism. The "must" is inappropriate when
there's an alternative.
The alternative is not sharing any GPL-encumbered code at all. Do you
consider that a reasonable alternative?
People have been sharing and modifying software licensed with the GNU GPL
for ages, isn't that alternative somewhat imaginary?
No, very few people I know other than myself even know GPL software
exists. And the restrictions are largely responsible for keeping it
that way for those ages.
You seem to consider "sharing" proprietary software is sharing. I think
that's wrong since to me it is not sharing but, instead, gaining control.
No, I think proprietary software is reasonable, but BSD, MIT, MPL, CDDL,
Apache, and similar less restricted licenses are about sharing. GPL
is about taking away other people's choices.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
