FC4 or FC5

[Les Mikesell]

On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 12:44, Sean wrote:

> > And how does that relate to this situation?  Assume you have a
> > proprietary library that communicates with some particular
> > device. Perhaps patented technology is involved so there is no
> > way to legally duplicate the functionality.  You do some work
> > to make a useful GPL program use that library to work with your
> > device.  You'd like to share that work with others who also
> > have the same device and library.  The GPL restricts you from
> > legally doing so. 
> 
> Hah!  What a confused piece of logic that is.  The thing that
> is really restricting you is the patented priprietary library!

Not at all.  The proprietary component is available to anyone
willing to meet its license requirments.  If it is a commercial
product, it is in the supplier's interest to make the terms
attractive.  If they aren't acceptable, there won't be any
buyers.  So let's assume the end users are happy with that
part.

> Yes the GPL restricts you from stealing the work of others; it's
> a Good Thing.

The original GPL'd part is not in question.  Everyone is
allowed to get their own copy of that.  What I'm saying is
that I cannot add work to that part and share my work
with others if that work also involves different components.
No one would be stealing anything.

>   Why the hell should a technology that has all
> the proprietary/patent problems you describe above get the
> benefit of working with any free software? 

What problems?  No one is forced to buy it or meet its
license terms.  They have the choice to do so or not.
And there is no restriction against using the free software
with it if everyone performs their own work to combine
them. The restriction is that you can't share that
work.

>  That's the point
> of the GPL, either you give back, your you don't get to play.

You are missing the point.  You can't do this because the
GPL explicitly removes that freedom.

> If you're locked into some proprietary POS that RESTRICTS YOU
> then that's your problem, not the problem of the GPL.

The GPL is the part that carries the restriction and
removes people's freedom.

>   The GPL
> is meant to foster the relationship between people who participate
> in open software.  It's working quite well at doing just that.

No, in fact it has probably done more to keep Microsoft in
business that any other single thing because it's restrictions
ensure that certain functions can never be added.

-- 
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell at gmail.com