All (Maybe Alan Cox?),
Please let me preface this email with a short note about tenor. I am attempting in
this email to respect all
individuals while at the same time address what I see as a serious issue in the
"Free" software community. I am
writing the email with the utmost respect and wish that it would not come across as
negative nor is meant to flame
anyone. If it comes across as negative to someone I apologize ahead of time.
I am a long time Linux user starting in 1995 on Slackware. Back then I had no concern
about software license and
what not. Even today the concept of "free" and "not free" is about how
much cash I took out of my pocket and gave to
someone for something that is going to be "mine". So when I learned about the
depths of "license" and what that really
means and what "Free" means to the Linux community I was still confused to some
extent. I would not bring this up in
this list if I where not trying to advocate Red Hat Linux (now "Fedora Core",
which by the way my customers will not
understand or like) in my local community correctly and with proper respect to individuals
rights to code and use of
such code. So, to the core of what I am talking (blathering really) about. Everyday
users/small companies do not have
the resources (time, energy, money to hire lawyers, will, intelligence (see above
"pay for something it is mine"
concept)) to spend on understanding license and how they affect one another and what not.
They only know this "Dang
this Linux thing sucks, it cant play my cool new Matrix DVD on my computer. I am going
back to Windows.". How do we
overcome this? Users want to play DVDs and listen to MP3s. Users want to do everything
they are accustomed to doing on
Windows on Linux, and personally so do I which is why my main machine is a Mac OS X
machine. I want to pitch "Fedora
Core" to my customers and sell them service, not software. I want "Free"
software to succeed so bad it hurts some
days. How will we get to the point when "Free" and "Closed" software
can co-exist in the same machine legally and
technically? They should be able to without huge in depth discussions that average users
would get lost in.
Also, I think that half of all this trouble is due to the fact that lawyers out there
are changing what the truth
is and redefinging concepts with laws to fit the individual's mindset who hired them.
This leads to silly assertions
like: "You wrote a kernel module to work with a Linux kernel, thus that kernel module
is a derivitive work.". Hog
wash. Just the same that my custom computer case that works with ATX only motherboards is
not a derivitive work of ATX
x86 motherboards. It is a wholly original work that I have built that happens to work with
ATX motherboards, but would
also work just fine as a AT x86 motherboard with some work. If I had taken an x86
motherboard and integrated it into
my ATX case so that it was no longer seperable and could not be used in any other way,
then it would be a derivitive
work since I took someone else's work and made it an integral part of my work. As it
is the kernel module can be
pulled out and it can be executed by itself in another piece of code with some work, and
the kernel can operate
without the custom kernel module with some work. Help me here if I am totally out of
whack, but derivitive work means
to take parts of someone else's work and include them in your own so they are
inseperable, and please do not say to
talk to some lawyer. I do not have the money to pay a lawyer to counsel me on every aspect
of my life, and neither
should I need one. What happened to the days of reason? It seems as if the noble concept
of "Free" is destroyed if I
am not be able to use my "Free" something with my not "Free"
something.
Also, if someone with the knowledge/wisdow to email/speak with me on this topic at
length outside of this forum to
help me in my endeavor to get the "Free" concept, GPL, and how it interacts with
the various other license concepts
down cold, I would appreciate it. I want to use Linux, GPL software, and "Free"
software as components to build my
service business, but I want to repsect the authors. I also want to provide a rich and
compelling environment for
users that will pay service fees to support it without breaking "law" or
exposing myself to the threat of legal
action.
As an aside. I am very pleased that so many people in the "Free" software
community are willing to share the
fruits of their labor with everyone else. My deepest thanks goes out to all of you for
your hard work. This especially
includes all those folks out there who maintain code bases. I do not envy you and your
difficult task, but I am oh so
thankful for it.
Regards,
John P. Mitchell <john(a)cepros.com>
Email Sticker: My Boss is a Jewish carpenter
http://www.GoboLinux.org | User #00010110