Andy Green wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
>Andy Green wrote:
>>Identifying with RHAT and acknowledging the benefits we get from their
>>work are Good Things, but there is nothing wrong with respins IMO,
>>legally or morally, in fact its the whole idea.
>Actually, it's the only point of the GPL.
>If someone offers me something without expectation of recompense,
>and I take it without offering recompense, then what have I done
>which is reprehensible.
Well it is nice to agree about something.
>BTW, the feelings that things are not quite "fair" being
>here are exactly the reason that the GPL and LGPL inhibit
>all commercial development for Linux. There are some people who
>think it isn't "fair".
"inhibit all commercial development for Linux" does not seem to be quite
called for, since we discuss this on a Redhat ML, which after all is a
Fair enough, if you think it's too strong. I tried to use a relatively
mild term. "Inhibit" rather than "prevent". It does have a dampening
effect. That's all I wanted to say.
relatively Large American Corporation with plenty of money
developing Linux. My living at the moment is off the back of using
Linux commercially. And, eg, Nokia 770.
However I actually agree with your larger point: there are cultural
are a 'freeloader'. People don't want to see themselves
in terms of
those negative words, that IMO is where the leeriness is coming from.
People are generally a bit unsure of what the deal is with this
liberally licensed stuff on both sides -- I saw it before with a
well-known website that publishes articles under Creative Commons but
which (unsuccessfully) tried to stop someone taking them at their word
and mirroring their content, as allowed by their license choice.
But... the confusion is part of the times, not a GPL problem IMO.
It is both. GPL and its attendant issues preceded this hullabaloo about
We are now in a position similar, I think, to the one the RIAA faced
back in the 1920s and 1930s, when radio broadcasting started to make
itself felt. The RIAA fought long and very hard to prevent the
broadcast of audio recordings over the air. There were many fights
and legal wrangles over this. Today, the first thing the recording
industry tries to do with a new recording is to get it on the
radio. We need to repeal the DMCA, and we will. Just like other laws
passed to prohibit broadcast of recorded audio materials were
repealed. But it will take time for the entertaninment and
information industries to adapt to the changing circumstances,
and find new ways to exploit them.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!