[svlug] RANT: Ubuntu is Evil

Chris Miller lordsauronthegreat at gmail.com
Sun Jan 17 18:18:48 PST 2010


On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Oh, by the way:
>
> Quoting Chris Miller (lordsauronthegreat at gmail.com):
>
>> The provisions that all software must use the GPL or a "compatible"
>> license is a major blocker.
>> The other blocker is that it proactively requires that any software
>> used in association be GPL licensed (or a compatible license).
>
> The above is simply mistaken:  The licence obligation to comply with the
> reciprocal clause in order to qualify for permission under a GPL (or
> other similar copyleft licence) to redistribute or create/distribute
> derivative works extends only to the edge of derivative works.
>
> "Derivative work" is a term of art in copyright law.  If you wish to
> fully understand what it means as applied by the courts, read the
> following decisions:
>
> o Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. FN53: 982 F.2d
>  693, 23 USPQ2d 1241 2d Cir. 1992
> o Gates Rubber v. Bando Chemical, FN57: 9 F.3d 823, 28 USPQ2d 1503 10th
>  Cir. 1993

Contrary to my first inclination, I actually read about those.

Interesting to say the least.

>> So, to say, Microsoft couldn't use librandomlibrary for whatever
>> reason in Windows, because librandomlibrary is GPL licensed.
>
> So, you're basically saying SFU/Interix doesn't exist.  That'll be a big
> shock to Microsoft Corporation!  Have you told them?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interix

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL

>From what I read, I'm still not particularly excited about the GPL.
Perhaps their FAQ is wrong?

>> That's the kind of freedom I'm after.
>
> OK, start coding, and quit embarrassing yourself in public.

http://www.fsdev.net/projects/lib/repository
http://www.fsdev.net/projects/eve-api-java/repository
http://www.fsdev.net/projects/eve-api-objc/repository
http://www.fsdev.net/projects/fscode/repository
http://www.fsdev.net/projects/firewiki/repository

All by me, all BSD (or needs to be updated to be BSD instead of Public
Domain, though there might be a few GPL holdovers from before when I
had actually bothered to read the GPL - hence my attempts to get
people to examine the thing and decide for themselves whether it's
appropriate for what they want to be doing.)

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Quoting Chris Miller (lordsauronthegreat at gmail.com):
>
>> Yes, the letter of the law lets you sell GPL software.
>> In practicality, I'm not going to have much success selling
>> librandomlibrary disks when my customers can use wget for nothing.
>
> Sounds like a personal problem.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic

If you have a solution to that, you sir are possibly the world's best
business man and lawyer.  The principle of selling software licenses
is built on scarcity, and the scarcity is built on the inability of
customers to share the product with others.  If something is GPL
licensed, that business opportunity goes out the window.  I wonder why
companies that sell nice stamped Linux installation disks aren't uh...
"major players?"

-- 
Registered Linux Addict #431495
For Faith and Family! | John 3:16!
http://www.fsdev.net/




More information about the svlug mailing list