Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

[max bianco]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:23 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Francis Earl wrote:
>
>
> >
> > > It is the same as if Microsoft claimed that everything that linked to
> any of their libraries belonged to them or could only be distributed on
> their terms, even if the recipient already had their own copy of the library
> itself.
> > >
> >
> > Microsoft doesn't give you access to their code, and doesn't expect full
> > access to yours.
> >
>
>  Everyone can get their own access to the MS code, and they make no claims
> on yours.
>
>
>
> > Thing is, GPL explicitly states that you retain copyrights, so you
> > dictate what you do with your code, so this is hardly an accurate
> > example.
> >
>
>  The FSF claims you can't distribute code you've written yourself under your
> own terms if it links to a GPL'd library at runtime.  My example was exactly
> that scenario.  I think that would get MS a lawsuit for anticompetitive
> behavior, although Apple will probably get away with it for a while with
> their iphone development kit.
>
>
>
> >
> > > I agree with the benefits which is why it is a shame that the code can't
> be used at all in many situations which require features under different
> restrictions.
> > >
> >
> > The authors don't intend for it to be used that way. That is no
> > different for any other distro,
> >
>
>  The *bsd's do not place such restrictions on their code, so don't claim
> that everyone does.
>
>
>
> > OS X includes such code also. Microsoft
> > is the only IT company that doesn't utilize a single piece of GPL'd
> > code.
> >
>
>  There are some programs that can be feature-complete without including
> patented technology or code under other restrictions.  And some can't be.
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > > If I stole your credit cards, transferred the money to my account, and
> > > > gave the card back, you wouldn't feel too good about that, would you?
> > > > How about if I justified it saying "you can still use the card", would
> > > > that make it ok?
> > > >
> > > > No, code is money.
> > > >
> > > But using another copy of it does not take anything away that was there
> before.  Try another scenario that doesn't take anything away to see if you
> can understand the real situation.
> > >
> >
> > How is it any different?
> >
>
>  How is software different than money? Making a copy can be legal and takes
> away nothing from the original.
>
>
>  > What does that money represent? It represents
>
> > the time you spent at work. It represents your time and effort.
> >
>
>  All of which you still have, regardless of what others do with other
> copies.
>
>
>
> > The authors of code written under the GPL want it used under the terms
> > of the GPL, they don't want some corporation stealing it and them never
> > getting any sort of notoriety or even a mention. In the Free Software
> > world, corporations CAN'T take your code, it is illegal.
> >
>
>  Which is a bizarre thing to be concerned about because the only thing they
> could possibly do to diminish the value of the original copy would be to
> improve it so much that no one would want the original.  As a potential user
> of that improved version, I think that restriction is a bad thing.  And most
> bizarre of all is the notion that I can't obtain my own copy of a GPL'd
> library, and someone else's code under their own terms separately.
>
The hard work is done by the original author. So if I understand you
correctly, its ok with you if i use your code, improve it, and
relicense it so what you freely contributed is now going to cost you
money. So your hard work now belongs to someone else.

Max