Java problem

[Les Mikesell]

Alan Cox wrote:
>>> Its really very simple. The GPL requires you provide any contributions
>>> under a licence that makes them free.
>> You mean restricted, don't you?
> 
> If you are at the point where you conclude that people type the reverse
> of the word they mean you have serious problems.

I'm not the one who reversed the meaning of free to mean restricted. And 
the GPL is simply restrictions.

>> something better?  Any why assume that it would necessarily be charged 
>> for?  There are plenty of examples of non-GPL'd code that is freely 
>> available and no evidence that it can't stay that way.
> 
> There are also very large numbers of examples where key parts did so,
> particularly with modular code such as an OS.

And the problem?   The unrestricted form is still available and everyone 
has a choice of which to use.  Freedom should be about increasing your 
choices not restricting them.  And any code that exists on a network can 
affect all of us, so we are better off with common, well-tested 
components instead of forcing new breakage to be invented.

>> It is not illegal, but it takes code that permits future innovation and 
>> turns it into something that restricts it, harming everyone in the 
>> process.  
> 
> And the GPL exists to stop someone taking code and turning it into
> something that restricts further, that is the heart of what it does,
> which makes your delusions even stranger.

It exists to keep potentially better variations from competing against 
the original, which makes sense in the cases where the author is selling 
  his own better version or support for the specific problems it embeds.

It's no delusion that better things could exist if the GPL did not 
prohibit them, perhaps even things that would compete successfully with 
The Monopoly.

>> What?  Competition is a good thing, and necessary for freedom and 
>> innovation.  Preventing it is an act of restriction, not freedom.
> 
> A competing book is not the another authors book reprinted and the money
> pocketed. An innovative painting is not a copy of an existing work.

Those aren't exactly analogous. It would be more like a book/painting 
available freely to everyone prohibiting it's inclusion in a compilation 
of works - or keeping themselves from being improved in other ways.  The 
FSF even claims that it is illegal to distribute components separately 
that may be combined with GPL'd parts unless you apply the same 
restrictions.  That's like saying I can't give someone a cover for their 
copyrighted book or a frame for their painting.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com