Java problem

Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Mon Dec 31 17:24:17 UTC 2007


Alan Cox wrote:

>> Sorry, I just don't understand the concept of _wanting_ to prevent the 
>> distribution of improved versions of code and keeping others from having 
>> it, while at the same time claiming it is free.
> 
> Its really very simple. The GPL requires you provide any contributions
> under a licence that makes them free.

You mean restricted, don't you?

> Without this the trend would be for
> every driver to be non-free, then charged for and then there would be no
> Linux.

You mean there could be something better than Linux, otherwise there 
would be no reason for Linux to go away.  That's the part I don't 
understand.  Why don't you want to give the world a chance to have 
something better?  Any why assume that it would necessarily be charged 
for?  There are plenty of examples of non-GPL'd code that is freely 
available and no evidence that it can't stay that way.

> Freedom is an active not a passive thing.

Restrictions are active, I guess.  Preventing innovation is active.

> As to BSD code - the BSD licence specifically permits people to create
> GPL only derivatives - so that is hardly hijacking.

It is not illegal, but it takes code that permits future innovation and 
turns it into something that restricts it, harming everyone in the 
process.  So I still call it hijacking.

> It may be neccessary
> to stop a third party then producing binary only non-free improvements
> and destroying the freedom.

What?  Competition is a good thing, and necessary for freedom and 
innovation.  Preventing it is an act of restriction, not freedom.

> Inaction does not create freedom.

Nor does preventing innovation and competition.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com




More information about the users mailing list