Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

[Les Mikesell]

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.

 > If you find a
> loophole, it is their right to ensure they cover it in the next
> incarnation.

By a loophole, do you mean something that would allow improved versions?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com