FC4 or FC5

[Antonio Olivares]

--- Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 12:51, Sean wrote:
> 
> > > The communist label comes from the idea of
> forcing people
> > > to share things they otherwise wouldn't.  RMS
> may have set
> > > out to eliminate proprietary licenses but he
> hasn't accomplished
> > > that and there's no reason to think he will
> succeed.  And
> > > in fact the GPL only adds restrictions so rather
> than forcing
> > > people to share it prevents it it many cases.
> > 
> > Les, by now you should be able to spot just how
> stupid the
> > argument that the GPL forces people to share is. 
> 
> And if you would actually read any posting you would
> see
> that's exactly what I said above.
> 
> >  The GPL doesn't
> > force anyone to share anything any more than
> anyone is forced to pay
> > Microsoft for their software.  
> 
> Yes, it doesn't even encourage sharing compared to
> less restrictive
> licenses - instead it prevents it in many cases.
> 
> > > Well, no... It only harms small potential
> competitors to large
> > > software companies.  Large companies don't need
> to use
> > > any GPL'd components since they can afford to do
> everything
> > > from scratch and they can make arrangements to
> add any
> > > additional proprietary components that they can
> license.
> > > Small companies that would like to leverage free
> software
> > > to build better competing programs are prevented
> by the
> > > GPL from making those same arrangements for
> components
> > > under a different license.
> > 
> > The GPL is doing the job it set out to do. 
> 
> Are you claiming that it's intent is to encourage
> anticompetitive
> monopolies?  I just assumed that was an accidental
> side effect.
> 
> > If you can't use the
> > resulting software in the way that you want,
> tough!  You have
> > to AGREE to the contractual terms or you don't
> have a deal.
> 
> Yet the 'work as a whole' clause involves others who
> have
> no relationship to this agreement.
> 
> > > Ummm, yeah... Microsoft is pissed all the way to
> the bank. RMS's
> > > work helped make one person the richest man in
> the world.
> > 
> > That is so utterly stupid you should be
> embarrassed to say it.
> 
> The truth hurts, ehh?  If you can point out the
> existence of
> some GPL'd projects as your proof that it isn't
> horrible, then
> I can point out what *really* happened on RMS's
> watch.
> 
> > > There was a free software community before the
> GPL, and there
> > > still is.  Don't pretend that everyone has ever
> agreed that
> > > the GPL restrictions are a good idea - or that
> they ever will.
> > 
> > So what?  The GPL is a different sort of free
> software contract
> > that is very reasonable and works well for those
> that want to
> > only share their work with others who also agree
> to share.  There
> > is room for all these different types of licenses
> to exist.  Choice
> > is GOOD.
> 
> OK, you have the idea right. Now you just have to
> understand how
> the GPL removes choices.  The only alternative is to
> not use
> code covered by it.
> 
> > > No, just separate projects like the *bsd's which
> continue
> > > with their purpose that predates Linux, and
> projects like
> > > perl with licenses that no one can fault.
> > 
> > Great.  But that doesn't change anything at all
> for people that
> > want to choose the GPL.
> 
> Agreed, but people who want to improve a project
> have no
> choice about the license for their contribution if
> the
> original is GPL'd.  The 'work as a whole' clause
> removes
> that choice.
> 
> > > If you had read any of the postings, you should
> know that my
> > > complaint is that the GPL has done more than
> anything else to
> > > keep Microsoft in business and a monopoly.
> > 
> > And if you could follow a logical train of
> thought, you'd know
> > just how stupid your complaints are.
> >  
> > > I want to be able to buy such products, not sell
> them.
> > [...]
> > > Yes, and that means I have to keep buying from
> Microsoft.
> > 
> > You're free to do things as you wish.  Please
> allow others to do
> > as they wish.
> 
> I don't object to other's choices.  However, I
> consider the
> real evil to be anticompetitive activity - taking
> away choices
> and alternatives, and I think many people have
> written code
> under the GPL without understanding how they were
> contributing
> to that or without having their own choice about the
> matter.
> You certainly don't understand it. 
> 
> > The GPL is NOT a major factor in reducing any
> competition. 
> 
> Examples of the Window competition based on GPL
> code, please...  
> 
> >  If it was
> > so bloody awful then people would create an
> original work under a new
> > license and everyone would start using it; but
> that doesn't happen.
> 
> Perhaps you don't understand why the *bsd's are
> still around.  Or
> why the project exists in the first place.  It does
> happen and for
> good reasons that the GPL projects can't share.

BSD's use KDE/GNOME and other desktop environments
which are released under GPL'd code.  So without GPL
code BSD's by themselves would not be where they are
that either.

Regards,

Antonio
>
> 
> -- 
>   Les Mikesell
>    lesmikesell at gmail.com
> 
> 
> -- 
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list at redhat.com
> To unsubscribe:
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com