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