OT: Two ways Microsoft sabotages Linux desktop adoption

[Joel Rees]

On 2006.2.15, at 10:01 PM, Mike McCarty wrote:

> Joel Rees wrote:
>
> Would you please quit changing to that giant font?

Plain text? Sorry, but that's just something your MUA does with 
Japanese text. Unless you want me to remote login and play around with 
your MUA configurations for you? ;-*

>> 2006-02-15 (水) の 00:25 -0600 に Les Mikesell さんは書きました:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 23:50, Joel Rees wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only problem with the GPL is the misinterpretations that 
>>>> circulate.
>
> Whether the interpretations are correct or incorrect,
> the GPL causes companies not to create software.
> Do you disagree with that?

No, company managers who refuse to trust things that are not controlled 
by money cause themselves to not use GPLed software in their creations.

The software was not available until it was written and published. 
You're faulting the author for publishing it under the GPL when he or 
she could well have published it under a license that would require the 
sacrifice of your first-born child to merely sniff the source.

> If so, then arguments about
> what the GPL actually says are irrelevant, since it
> is the interpretation, right or wrong, which guides
> companies' efforts.

False interpretations are not the fault of the people being interpreted.

> [snip]
>
>>> The FSF has taken the position that if
>>> a GPL'd library is unique, then anything that uses that
>>> library is a derived work and thus subject to the GPL
>>> restrictions even if it is distributed separately from
>>> the library.
>>
>> I think you are overstating the case.
>
> How about not stating opinion like this, and
> actually discussing the text of the LGPL?

If you want to discuss the text of the LGPL, go ahead:

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html

see sections 5 and 6.

>>> In the past, an author that wanted to
>>> give a work away freely without the GPL restrictions was
>>> forced by the FSF to rewrite a library (badly, it was
>>> never really used) with all the corresponding functions
>>> instead of just permitting users to link their own
>>> GPL'ed library obtained separately.
>>
>> Are you speaking of an actual case, or an actual FAQ, or are you
>> speaking of somebody's panicked interpretation after having used GPLed
>> source without having read the license?
>
> ISTR that there was actual pursuit by FSF at one time.
> But that's been a while, so it's not really evidenc of
> anything.

Pursuit of what?

Breaking a license will often cause authors of GPL-ed code to seek 
legal remedy. That is true of any license, free, open, or otherwise. If 
the copyright has been turned over to the FSF, the FSF will seek legal 
remedy.

>> Anything which does not incorporate is not derived. Static linking
>> actually brings in the library code, so it is derived.
>
> Actually, courts have ruled that "incorporation" does not
> imply "derivation", the LGPL notwithstanding.

CFR?

>  But the
> corporations are not willing to face the prospect of
> going to court over this, they just don't produce the
> software for a minor segment of the market.

Well, since they don't produce for the BSD segment either, I'm going to 
think the license itself is just an excuse. They don't want to go after 
small markets, period, or they are intimidated by the 800 pound gorilla 
who hints at dropping their license to the source of the OS that holds 
the bulk of the market, or whatever.

>> Stallman describes his take on dynamic linking, it's there on either
>> fsf.org or gnu.org for anyone to read. Publicly stated. Anyone worried
>> about it can read that and see what they think for themselves.
>
> I went and did a search, and can't find what you allude to.
> Why not give us a link yourself?

gnu.org ?

Okay, if it's not in

      http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

then try some of the other pages linked from

      http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html

> I found this
> http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonmatusow/archive/2005/11/13/492285.aspx

Let me get this straight. I'm going to give me cred to the 
interpretations of intent on some blog on blogs.msdn.com than to the 
declarations of intent on the site run by the guys who gave us the 
license?

I don't think so.

The word is "primary source carries more weight".

> with this in it:
>
> [QUOTE MODE ON]
>
> I don't know Ian, but he strikes me as an extremely bright guy and has
> also pretty clearly shown he has chops in the Free Software development
> space. So what is the rub here? The fact is, if you ask the Free
> Software Foundation GC Eben Moglin about his opinion regarding static
> vs. dynamic linking (which I have), he asserts a rather startling 
> thing.
> His interpretation is that BOTH a static and dynamic link represent
> aggregation and the terms of the GPL (if you distribute) apply. When I
> have asked this same question of the commercial OSS players
> (particularly the Linux vendors) they will adamantly state that it is
> only static linking that would do it.
>
> [QUOTE MODE OFF]

I don't see any links to actual words from Moglen in your quote, in the 
link you reference, nor in the article that link references. I did not 
a response to Ian's post -- that the package that combined GPLed 
libraries with CDDL (or whatever that license from Sun was) source is a 
shining example of how _not_ to use other people's source code. (GCC is 
quite commonly used on Solaris, for what it's worth.)

>> Until there are court cases, of course, it's just like any other 
>> license
>> -- we don't know what a court might decide, and we put ourselves
>> somewhat at the mercy of the license holders when we use their 
>> property.
>>
>> So what? (I personally prefer to depend on the mercy of someone who
>> publishes under GPL more than of someone who publishes under 
>> Microsoft's
>> EULA, for example.)
>
> The so what is: Corporations don't want to go to court,
> they want to sell software.

Some people don't like bicycling against the wind.

>  If they face the remote
> possibility of going to court in order to produce a driver
> for a minute piece of the market, then they aren't going to
> produce the software.

And that gets my sympathy how?

If they aren't willing to play by the rules I set for my software, I 
don't want them building and publishing stuff derived from my software. 
Even though the rules I set are actually fairly liberal. Period. End of 
discussion.

> [snip]
>
>> You are always free to ignore the GPLed software, which was the way it
>> was before the software was published under the GPL.
>
> I think you completely missed Les' point.

--
If God had meant for us to not tweak our source code,
He'd've given us Microsoft.