On 06 Jan 2005 15:38:53 -0800, Paul Rubin <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Making derived work proprietary in no way implies that the base >> work is publicly unavailable anymore. >Since you want to be able to incorporate GPL code in your proprietary >products, Nope. That is not what I'm arguing. Really, I think you have jumped to conclusion about that: I merely pointed out that I don't like what I perceive as end effect of what GPL license writers are attempting to achieve: vendor lock-in. I think I stated that clearly. > and say there's no problem since the base work is still >available from the same places it was available from before, fairness >would say you shouldn't mind that people incorporate code from your >products into THEIR products, since your version is still available >from you. I merely pointed out that previous poster's argument about "hijacking" the OSS product: that it's just not possible as long as this person is not in legal position to make _base_ work proprietary. I think I stated clearly: base work is still available regardless of whatever derived work creators do or don't do - esp. that they tend to release only binaries, thus making it impossible to create further derived works! >From the viewpoint of looking at availability of source code A, it's completely irrelevant if those guys are fishmongers or make derived work A' and redistribute only binary of A'. Not a single line of publicly available source code appeared or disappeared as the result of whatever they do. Amounts of binaries - yes, that is affected. But not the source code. >Really, you're just a freeloader looking for handouts. Rest assured this is not my motivation, esp. that I attempt not to use the GPL-ed software whenever I reasonably can (e.g. it's rather hard to abstain from using gcc sometimes, as you oft have a hard time compiling this damn thing with anything else -- see, the beginnings of vendor lock-in appear). And I thought I stated clearly that basically I have no problem with LGPL - which requires distributing modifications of the _base_ work, but not _your_ code. Oh, and "freeloading" argument really doesn't make much sense: since that software is available to EVERYONE, its availability / unavailability in the economic sense it is merely reducing / increasing costs equally for everyone (ceteris paribus, assuming both vendor A and B find that OSS product equally useful). I like to think of OSS as a "tide that rises all boats". -- It's a man's life in a Python Programming Association. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
