'GPL encumbrance problems'

[Mike McCarty]

Erwin Rol wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 07:40 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 06:15, Andy Green wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>What I don't really understand is how you go *poof* out of the market
>>>>when you sell gadgets that need a open source driver ? People still
>>>>would have to by the gadget, wouldn't they ? 
>>>
>>>The worry is that when much of what makes the gadget innovative is tied
>>>up in the code that must be opened, people will indeed still buy the
>>>gadget, but perhaps not from the original author of the opened code...
>>
>>Or, the gadget depends on code already written and under another
>>license.  The GPL is all-or-nothing in this regard so if any
>>component (with some interpretation of components...) needs
>>a non-GPL license, none can have it.  Personally I think this
>>is indefensibly anti-competitive. Imagine if Microsoft said
>>that if you used any 3rd party DLLs along with their code
>>the 3rd party code suddenly become controlled by Microsoft's
>>license.  
> 
> 
> Imagine if Microsoft said you had to pay to use that DLL ? Oh wait they
> do. Imagine if Microsoft said you where not allowed to use that DLL with

No, they don't. You apparently are unable to parse English.

Let's be very clear and careful about this so you can follow the logic.

Suppose MicroSoft builds a DLL called MicroSoftDLL, and distributes
it under some sort of license.

Suppose WidgitCo builds a DLL called WidgitCoDLL, and distributes
it under some sort of license.

Suppose MikeCo builds a program called MikeCoProgram, and it uses
MicroSoftDLL and WidgitCoDLL.

Then if WidgitCoDLL is GPL, MikeCo has a problem, because use of
WidgitCoDLL is contingent on MicroSoftDLL being GPL as well.

The analogy would be MicroSoft insisting that WidgitCoDLL must be
distributed under MicroSoft's license.

Which they do not.

But which GPL does.

[snip rambling illogical nonsense]


>>I'm not a lawyer, and even if I were I wouldn't risk
>>a business on that interpretation, but there is just something
>>wrong with the concept that you can't combine different products
>>to add value.
> 
> 
> Yep there is something wrong with it, i wanted to add a device driver to
> Windows and distribute my new Erwindows but Microsoft didn't let me, I
> wonder why, i mean i used a closed license just like windows, and it
> added great value.

By the argument you just made, we all should avoid [L]GPL libraries
in commercial code.

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!