Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

[Francis Earl]

On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 13:37 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Francis Earl wrote:
> > 
> >> An interface is agnostic to what is on the other side, which is the 
> >> point of it being an interface.   And going out of your way to not work 
> >> with certain others is anticompetitive behavior.
> > 
> > You don't seem to get it, GNU was founded on certain beliefs, and just
> > because those beliefs are now entering the mainstream does NOT mean
> > RedHat and other strong believers should reverse their decisions.
> 
> It's not a matter of 'getting it'.  The mechanism used to enforce the 
> beliefs are counterproductive to the goals.  RedHat, of course has a 
> huge vested interest in keeping others from being able to add 
> improvements that they can't also automatically obtain but that's not my 
> point here.

Actually, they don't. It is simply a matter of law. RedHat contributes
ALL of its code under GPL or similar licenses BECAUSE of that law. All
of the companies that contribute to Linux do so understand that the
other parties will do the same.

Why should one company be able to leech off of them without investing in
the code themselves? Why should other companies benefit from the work of
those companies that DO NOT WANT THEM TO? That is the point of GPL, you
scratch my back, I'll scratch yours... translated into legal-speak.

If someone decides to not play ball, and their is enough interested
parties, there is always a way to work around the issues. That work
around simply never benefits the group not playing ball.

RedHat believes Linux isn't ready on the consumer desktop because there
are so many huge holes in what the consumer desires.

> > Take a look at http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Members to see how
> > anti-competitive Linux is in the tech industry. Anyone that wants in can
> > contribute and have a say in the direction of it... No one owns Linux,
> > all you have to do is play by the rules.
> 
> But you can't include content already under different restrictions. 
> There's a lot of that content - some with no legal alternative 
> replacements possible.

You can distribute that code under GPL if you have the copyrights to it.

> >> You can't choose to cater/not cater.  You either present a usable 
> >> interface and give the user the freedom to decide what to put on the 
> >> other side, or you don't.  The rest is just side effects.
> > 
> > I'll remind you it's ILLEGAL to have non-free code link against GPL
> > code.
> 
> Yes, and that keeps GPL'd code from being used at all in many situations 
> which is the part I consider counterproductive.  The way to oppose 
> overpriced proprietary software is to make usable replacements for as 
> much of it as possible - which necessarily involves using it with code 
> under different restrictions for as long as there are no free 
> alternatives.  Instead, the license forces users to continue to use all 
> non-free code since they can't be mixed.

So the way to counteract expensive proprietary software is to use
proprietary software in the making of the alternative? No, the best way
to counteract such things is to replace the ENTIRE product.

Also, the point of Linux is NOT to be a cheap alternative. That is in
fact a stated NON-GOAL. The GPL explicitly allows making money from the
code. If I want, I can charge you $5 million dollars for a copy of GIMP
on CD-ROM, if you're dumb enough to pay it  :P 

> > oh well. Windows users have been perfectly fine using a system that
> > doesn't even support their hardware out of the box.
> 
> Windows doesn't change its driver interface on a monthly basis, so users 
> have no problem getting and installing a vendor-provided driver that 
> normally continues to work for the life of their machine.  That scheme 
> is not a problem.

I'll state again, Linux currently provides an interface for drivers that
is stable, but it's only available to those willing to release their
code under GPL.

> > No one is suing ATI
> > or Nvidia, but they are some of companies not abiding by the rules.
> 
> If their software uses components already under different restrictions 
> they can't possibly abide by the law while releasing under GPL terms.

Uhh, hence my insinuating that their drivers are illegal.

> > DRI
> > is working as fast as they can though to create a good story despite
> > that. 
> 
> Video drivers are a tiny part of this problem.

What do you consider the more important area for the discussion?