Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

[David Boles]

Da Rock wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 13:35 -0400, max bianco wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Matthew Saltzman <mjs at clemson.edu> wrote:
>>>  On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 10:41 -0400, max bianco wrote:
>>>  > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:23 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>  > >
>>>
>>>>>  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.
>>>  >
>>>
>>>  I don't think anyone is talking about modifying your code and
>>>  relicensing it.  That would clearly be a derived work, and there's no
>>>  question you can impose conditions on its redistribution.
>>>
>>>  You write a library.  I write a program that calls routines in your
>>>  library.  Now the question is whether your license can impose conditions
>>>  on my distribution of my own code.  That's a fuzzy, gray area, but (to
>>>  mix a metaphor) it's just the tip of the iceberg of complexity.
>>>
>>>  ChipCo creates a piece of specialized hardware and releases a
>>>  proprietary driver.  I write code to interface your library and the
>>>  ChipCo driver.  Can your license prevent me from distributing my code?
>>>  If so, you and I might have a reasonable disagreement about whether
>>>  that's a good thing.  But you can't deny that some people who might
>>>  benefit from my code (and by extension, your code) are prevented from
>>>  doing so.  You can only argue that some greater good is served by their
>>>  suffering.  Note that I want to be generous with my code and release it
>>>  under an open-source license; I'm not trying to unfairly benefit from
>>>  your work.
>>>
>>>  You write a library and distribute it under an open-source license.  I
>>>  write a library and distribute it under a slightly different--but
>>>  incompatible--open-source license.  Les writes a program that links to
>>>  both libraries.  If your license can impose conditions on Les's
>>>  distribution of his program, then users who would get value from Les's
>>>  program are SOL.  Note that nothing here violates the spirit of OSS.
>>>  Everyone involved wants to be generous.  Nobody is trying to unfairly
>>>  benefit from anyone else's work.  But due to a technicality, nobody can
>>>  benefit from Les's work at all!  That seems like a shame, doesn't it?
>>>
>> Yes it does but what then is the answer?Everybody argues that A is
>> right or B is wrong or c....you get the idea. What is the solution?
>> Let's stop going over the same ground and come up with some kind of
>> solution. The end user is ultimately the only one that matters, i
>> think everyone can agree on that, if the end user cannot get their
>> work done then everyone suffers, so what should we as end user's
>> do?should i have to pay for a brand new office suite when nothing
>> substantial except the companies desire to support it has changed?That
>> is an example not a way to drag M$ into this, so please lets leave the
>> M$ bashing where it belongs. this will of course create another debate
>> but at least we will subtly change the content of the conversation.
> 
> I agree - a solution needs to be found. But then, this is what the heart
> of this whole thread has been about: legalities of linking different
> licenses. And Fedora and a minority of users has taken a stand on one
> side of this issue. Will they condescend to a level where an agreement
> can be reached?


I don't understand you comment. The question is asked and answered.

Asked. Will Fedora break the law and their principals?

Answered. No.

What part of *no* don't you understand?

-- 


   David

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20080430/70491059/attachment-0001.sig>