On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 07:52:31AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > 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. I suggest your participate more into these communities, learn about the GNU GPL (and not about some imaginary license you keep bringing about), and then advocate it to the people who don't know. >> 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 I think this wrap ups very well all your argument. You start from a premise that I fundamentally reject as absurd, and from the absurd anything can be deduced. > but BSD, MIT, MPL, CDDL, > Apache, and similar less restricted licenses are about sharing. GPL is > about taking away other people's choices. How can something that isn't there be taken away? The GNU GPL adds to people's choices. The default is no choice at all. Rui -- Keep the Lasagna flying! Today is Setting Orange, the 59th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
