[I seem to have missed responding to one of your important points. Josh Triplett wrote: > Michael K. Edwards wrote: >>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:33:35 -0800, Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> wrote: >>>That's the *point* of the GPL: to create a set of software available for >>>use by GPLed applications, giving those applications an advantage. If >>>GPLed components make it easier to develop Free Software applications >>>(which you inaccurately describe above as making it more difficult to >>>develop proprietary applications), then that's a good thing for Free >>>Software. >> >><rant> >>That may be the point of the GPL in some people's eyes, Most, I'm willing to bet. There are certainly enough people who choose the LGPL or a non-copyleft because they don't agree with that stance; I suspect most people who have any reason at all for choosing the GPL (as distinct from those who just choose it due to popularity or necessity) choose it because they want that copyleft. >>but it ain't >>there in the text, unless you're relying on the afterthought about the >>LGPL. I disagree, and I think you have yet to provide sufficient proof to contradict the large number of people and organizations who are quite confident that you are incorrect about that. >>The major point of the GPL is to keep free software free. A >>Balkanized licensing landscape, with most reusable components under >>temporarily neutered version of the GPL or totally unrelated and >>sometimes incompatible licenses, doesn't serve that goal. Nor does it >>make it easier to develop Free Software applications that work well. I think you are incorrect to blame people's actions based on their disagreement with the GPL on the GPL itself. If you don't like that people have made exceptions to the GPL or chosen non-GPL licenses, keep in mind that people are responsible for their own actions, and compain about those people, not the GPL. >>And it certainly does make it more difficult to develop proprietary >>applications that can coexist with free software applications on a >>GNU/Linux system without massive bloat. I can't even run KMail, >>OpenOffice, and Firefox on the same system without getting nailed for >>triple the memory footprint (and triple the bugs) in code that >>provides 95% identical functionality -- let alone, say, Komodo or >>Acrobat Reader. If you want to argue against the proliferation of toolkits, that's fine. I don't think that is remotely relevant to license compatibility. I can certainly acknowledge that the issue of the KDE developers use of a proprietary toolkit in Free Software spawned off the GTK toolkit, and that later Qt provided their own toolkit as Free Software. Do you really think there would only be one toolkit if that hadn't happened? There are certainly a number of toolkits other than those big two. (In theory, we wouldn't have either one if not for that issue, since both came out of that debacle; we'd probably only have other toolkits.) And none of that is relevant to the case of OpenOffice.org, which had its own toolkit since way back when it was proprietary software by StarDivision. >>Sure would be nice to run Nikon Capture (or DXO Raw Engine) on my >>Linux box to get a free-as-in-beer (or cheap-for-its-value) >>implementation of photo importing, correctly calibrated for my camera >>and lens. But it ain't gonna happen, largely because tying to GPL >>components is just as big a problem for people who are protecting >>sweat-of-the-brow in which none of us really has a legitimate "free >>speech" interest as for those who are trying to perpetuate their grasp >>on a spreadsheet that doesn't suck. Nothing stops Nikon or DXO from porting those applications to GNU/Linux, nor are they required to use GPLed components or GPL their software in order to do so. Also, it's interesting that you would use the phrase "sweat-of-the-brow", since that's not protected by copyright. >>I used to be pretty damn good at image processing, and would be at >>complete liberty to contribute to the GIMP now that I'm out of that >>line of business. But I'm not going to get around to it as long as I >>can't get the damn thing to build on MacOS and can't get good enough >>import results on GNU/Linux. How's that for collateral damage? >></rant> How is the technical issue of your inability to build a piece of software on a particular proprietary OS remotely relevant? The license certainly doesn't stop you from doing so. As for getting better import results on GNU/Linux, if you are good at image processing, perhaps you could try to improve that state of affairs. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature