FC4 or FC5

[Les Mikesell]

On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 08:30 -0700, Peter Gordon wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
> > Actually it is commercial vs GPL. [...]
> The GPL specifically allows commercial redistribution. The
> only restriction it contains is that the cost for a copy of
> the source code cannot exceed the cost of the binaries sold.

You apparently haven't actually read the GPL.  Please note the
parts that say you can't restrict further redistribution and
that you can't redistribute at all unless the work as a whole
meets the terms of the GPL.  And in fact it doesn't say
anything specific about the cost of the source, so I'm not
sure what you did read...

> > Many patented components that can't ever be combined with
> > GPL'd code and legally distributed....   Consider what is
> > in the media player alone.  It is easy enough to add
> > free components like OpenOffice or Cygwin to Windows, but
> > how do you add device drivers with patented technology
> > to Linux?
> Software patents are a Bad Thing(TM). What we need to do is
> strive to strike down such patent law and also encourage the
> patent holders to grant an irrevocable, world-wide, royalty-
> free license for any purpose imaginable on behalf of the
> public so that all can benefit from its code.

Yes, you might interpret the GPL advocates as being against
the laws of our country.  I'm not particularly interested
in revolutionary activity today, though - I'd just like to
stop having to pay Microsoft to be able to access devices
that need proprietary drivers - and I believe that the GPL
is prolonging the time that will be necessary even if it
is an unplanned side effect.

>  (For example,
> the Theora video codec is actually based on On2's patented
> VP3, but they released all patent rights to it so that
> anyone may use it for any purpose without such licensing
> costs.)

Let me know when studios start producing interesting content
using that codec.

-- 
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell at gmail.com