GPL Flaw (Was: Android mythbusters)

[Neil Schneider]

On Mon, November 9, 2009 10:10 pm, SJS wrote:
> begin  quoting Neil Schneider as of Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 09:07:54AM -0800:
>> On Sun, November 8, 2009 1:09 am, SJS wrote:
>> > 2. GPL code embodies the worst sort of interpretation of "license";
>> > if you buy a GPL program, you do not own that program, it is merely
>> > licensed to you, but there's no warranty, rebate, guarantee, or other
>> > obligation on the providers of the software. This completely bypasses
>> > the Right of First Sale normally associated with copyright, which ought
>> > to be cause for concern. It isn't.
>>
>> How is this different from most proprietary licenses?

You didn't answer my question. Name another piece of software you can buy that
you own. Nobody sells their software, the merely license it. That was my
point, which you apparently didnt get. Also, every EULA I've ever read
specifically says, no warranty, not guarantee or any other obligation on the
providers of the software. Oh, and by the way, you opened it, you bought it.
Try getting a refund on  software because if failed to perform as advertised.

> I don't accept the "everyone else is doing it, therefore it isn't bad"
> argument. I haven't since I was five. You should've listened to your
> mother when you were a child.

That wasn't my point. You're complaining about the GPL and nearly every other
software company on the face of the planet has a worse license. So WHAT IS
YOUR POINT, other than to complain about the GPL?

> And not all proprietary licenses are that bad.

Really? Do tell?


>> > 3. the GPL is hostile to the business of selling software. The only
>> > people who can reliably make a profit selling GPL software are the
>> > aggregators, who sell indexed collections of GPL software. All GPL
>> > software eventually ends up free-as-in-beer.
>
> Hard point to contest, isn't it.

You can just use statically linked libraries and not use the GPL, you have a
choice. What are the licenses for other libraries like?

>> > 4. the GPL is hostile to other licenses. When an open-source license
>> > conflicts with the GPL, the GPL advocates demand that the other
>> > license change, and never the GPL. There is no compromise, there is
>> > only the GPL way, and everyone else just needs to suck it up.
>>
>> You can choose not to build derivative works on top of GPL software and
>> still
>> run it on GPL licensed OS. What's the problem?
>
> That doesn't stop the GPL advocates from their shrill demands that
> the other licenses change so that the GPL community can suck in all
> that software, enriching the GPL community, without enriching the
> other community.
>
> And, no, absorbing another community does not count as "enrichement".

I'm beginning to detect a trend. You didn't write the license, so you don't
like it. Don't the people who actually write the software get a choice in how
it gets used? Isn't it their right to not allow other people turn their work
into proprietary products that have onerous licenses that they themselves
would never agree to? You don't like the GPL, don't use it. Use the license
you like.

> [transitional point deleted without indication]
>> > I want source to be shipped with software. Compilable source. I
>> > don't need immediate royalty-free distribution rights -- I'm fine
>> > submitting my changes back to the vendor to be incorporated into
>> > the next product release.
>>
>> Most companies that want to sell closed source software won't allow this
>> except at a very high price, some not at all.
>
> So you're conceding the point, then?

I missed the point apparently. You're bitching about GPL. You like closed
source software? You like non-responsive software companies with licenses that
are more onerous that GPL?


>> > I want a right of first sale. If I build a product that *uses*
>> > some software, I ought to be able to sell my product without
>> > having to give my product back to the software vendor. Granted,
>> > to sell 10 of my product, I'll have to obtain (through legal
>> > channels) 10 copies of the software it uses, but that's just
>> > part of the cost of my product.
>>
>> I don't think  anyone can take that away. It's the law.
>
> Can't do it with GPL software.

How so? You have the right of first sale afaik.

>> > I want a license that can play well with software that has a
>> > different license. I don't want a software license to be a tool
>> > for some antisocial group to impose their political/economic beliefs
>> > on to everyone else.
>>
>> That's what copyright law does. Get over it.
>
> Oh, up yours.

You're the one complaining, not me. I'm just pointing out that the producer of
the software gets to choose the license he uses. He produced it, he gets to
choose. You're complaining that you can't incorporate his product in yours,
without having to comply with the license. That's copyright law. You don't
like it, get the law changed.

> Copyright law is *not* a tool for imposing political and/or economic
> believs on to others.  It's a freakin' limited monopoly on duplication;
> not a tool of conversion.
>
> Copyright is a compromise, and the GPL does not compromise.

Oh, yeah. Copyright is a compromise. for everyone that doesn't have the money
to pay to get the law changed. Disney if fine with creating derivative works
from other people, but heaven forbid anyone do the same with their products.
So they pay to get copyright law extended. Money talks, bullshit walks.



-- 
Neil Schneider                          pacneil_at_linuxgeek_dot_net
Key fingerprint = 67F0 E493 FCC0 0A8C 769B  8209 32D7 1DB1 8460 C47D
"Work to eat, eat to live, live to bike, bike to work." -- Naomi Bloom