From: Mike McCarty (jmccarty_at_ssd.usa.alcatel.com)
Date: 2002-03-28 17:49:02
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, MagerValp wrote:
> >>>>> "MM" == Mike McCarty <jmccarty_at_ssd.usa.alcatel.com> writes:
>
[snip]
> MM> This is false. Licenses *grant* permission, they do not *deny*
> MM> freedom. A license *cannot* deny anyone any freedom.
>
> True, but many licenses are more restrictive than they have to be. The
What do you mean by "than they have to be"? I let you into my house on
my terms and my terms only.
> EULA of a random commercial application is usually in violation of
> consumer laws in at least a couple of western countries.
Eh?
Define "random commercial application".
Your statement has no meaning or content on the face of it.
> MM> By contrast, the GNU General Public Licenses are intended to
> MM> guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to
> MM> make sure the software is free for all its users.
>
> MM> This is false. They are designed to ensure that
> MM> commercial/proprietary developers cannot use their code.
>
> No, they are free to do whatever they want with the product, as long
> as they give due credit for derived works and release the source code
> along with it. Freely available source code does not necessarily pro-
> hibit commercial exploitation, as has been demonstrated several times
> (e.g. Sun and Solaris).
I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but it is the *express*
*intent* of the FSF that the LGPL deny license to commercial/proprietary
users. I quote from their site
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free
competition an important advantage, will try to convince
authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered
collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising
"more users for this library" IF WE LET THEM USE THE CODE IN
PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE PRODUCTS.
[emphasis added]
It is the express intent to prevent the use of LGPL source in
proprietary products.
> FWIW I think the (L)GPL has its uses. It is rather restrictive, but it
> tries to protect the end user. But either way, the author is free to
> choose his or her own license, and there's not a thing you can do
> about it. If Ullrich doesn't like the GPL, that's that.
The FSF has a number of goals. One of them is the demise of
commercial/proprietary software. Again I quote:
However, when a library provides a significant unique
capability, like GNU Readline, that's a horse of a different
color. The Readline library implements input editing and
history for interactive programs, and that's a facility not
generally available elsewhere. Releasing it under the GPL and
limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real
boost. At least one application program is free software today
specifically because that was necessary for using Readline.
...
By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only,
we can help each other's free software packages outdo the
proprietary alternatives. The whole free software movement will
have more popularity, because free software as a whole will
stack up better against the competition.
Mike
--
char *p="char *p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I don't speak for Alcatel <- They make me say that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2002-03-28 17:49:26 CET