Re: Economics and the GPL

"Deven T. Corzine" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hey, you may want to checkout those commercial competitors of wine:
> > MainWin and Wind/U. Great software! Have you ever asked yourself why
> > Wine seems to be more popular for porting software than these?
> I'm guessing Wine is better code.  Of course, that begs the question -- why
> didn't these competitors draw on Wine to get the best of both?

This is hardly a valid comparison.  MainWin/Wind/U are *source* level conversions
of M$ apps.  If you don't have the source, you are SOL.  Wine is a binary
translator/emulator.  The closest thing I can remember to this was Sun's WABI.
Another cousin would the the virtual processors (RealPC / Vmware), those do
different things too.
 
> > Are you aware of the fact that it is possible to sell proprietary
> > software to run on GPL-dominated systems such as Linux? 

This is *only* because the libraries are *L*GPLed.  If glibc was GPLed, it would be
pretty much impossible (unless you were willing to rewrite libc) to make propriatary
software on such a platform.

> > Have you any reason to believe that this won't be possible any more in the future?
> That's because Linux is based on POSIX, which you can implement to without
> the GPL having anything to say about it.  And glibc uses the LGPL, which
> doesn't prevent it either.  In a GPL-dominated world, you (eventually) not
> not be able to run ANY proprietary software on a (current) GPL'd OS.  (I'm
> sure Stallman would love for that to be the case.)

and what do you think HURD is?  And to answer the original statement, Yes.  I would
be suspicious of any LGPLed FSF software because the the LGPL to GPL conversion
clause
in the LGPL. 
 


Anthony Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> If *I* write some source code, do I or do I not get to determine how my
> source code is used?  If I decide I do not want it to be used in
> commercial software, isn't that my choice?  If I choose to put
> restrictions on the use of my source code, is it not my right?

If you believe this, you should have NO problem with M$ EULAs (or any other
draconian EULAs for the matter), because this is *exactly* the same reasoning
that is used by them.  You can't ban one and allow the other....
 


Patrik Stridvall <[email protected]> wrote:
> How to use, no. Anyway, the GPL explictly doesn't regulate use so
> that is irrelevant as far as the GPL is concerned.

Actually, FSF claims it DOES.  See the "Arms Length" example in the GPL FAQ.  In
summary, 
you are not allowed to ship a GPLed program IN a propriatary OS (even if you give
out the source for the GPLed program).   I don't think this has a snowball's chance
in
(choose your warm place here) in court, and it's not like FSF hasn't had examples of
this
already being done, but you don't see them stop making the claim.
 


Anthony Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> However.
> 
> First sale makes allowances for use of a single, purchased copy.  You
> are still not allowed to photocopy your book and distribute the
> photocopy.  So copyright *does* restrict some uses, as well as distribution.

Actually, you can under certain circumstances (under fair use).  In any case,
it is unclear whether you can force the first recipient to accept ONLY the
incoming restrictions when he distributes.

> If I release GPLd code, I cannot limit how my code is used.  I can only
> say it may not be distributed as part of a proprietary, closed-source
> product.  Again, "use" in this sense equates to distribution.

s/propriatary, closed-source/non-GPLed/
 
> Now, in the case of the patches:  You are completely correct.  I agree
> that you can both legally and morally create a patch against GPLd source
> code, and distribute that patch to whomever you wish, and license that
> patch in whatever form you wish.  You just can't release the binaries,
> which is a derived work.  This could, I imagine, create a "gray-market"
> for patches against GPLd works.  But it would be a miasma of legal
> wrangelling.
> 

rms/FSF would disagree with this.  Would be an interesting legal test.  

-r