--=-FrLjfihjEc9s11Mbavjf
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, 2004-01-17 at 07:37, Craig White wrote:
> isn't the 'individual' user of Red Hat or xyz distro losing out by the
> restriction that their distro isn't free to borrow or use the YAST code?

It would seem so to me.

> doesn't the impact of the YAST license restrictions actually extend
> beyond just the sale for profit?

Well it does if you consider it discourages collaboration.  85% of all
free software is GPL (or it was last time I did research on SourceForge
and such)  As thus, if your software is not GPL compatiable you are
discouraging reuse with 85% of the community.

> Let's not forget that the corporate world has been a most integral part
> of development under the GPL and compatible license software. The GPL
> license has undoubtedly been a catalyst for this if for no other reason
> than the overall API doesn't rest in the hands of a corporation whose
> direction may change at any moment. We have been witnessing the impact
> of this for many years now.

Well I think you hit the crux of the issue.  I think if you asked
Richard Stallman what he thought about a corporation installing software
on users desks and not giving them code.  He probably would want to call
that "distributing" and demand giving the users the code.  However, I
think the FSF has abdicated to legal definitions of entities to deal
with distribution.  Also, as Craig points out here, I think contrary to
belief they "compromise" quite a bit.  They very well compromised on
corporate distribution in order to help the adoption of Free Software in
the enterprise.  Much in the way they created the Lesser General Public
License (LGPL) in order to encourage adoption of Free Software.

Personally I am torn on that decision.  I am not in love with it, but I
can reconcile it to the times.  If you would like i would be glad to ask
RMS, Eben or both why they came to the conclusion.  You can find
directly the stance they take on internal distribution here[1].  Though
you don't seem to be debating that, just disagreeing that they made that
choice.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution
--=20
Derek Neighbors
GNU Enterprise
http://www.gnuenterprise.org
derek@gnue.org

Was I helpful?  Let others know:
 http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=3Ddneighbo

--=-FrLjfihjEc9s11Mbavjf
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBACbyVHb99+vQX/88RAjjOAJ0fjp4yJov3OvJALQGyJoIheh0HdACgmXT0
taWwKRUl/kqevqRg6aMz02I=
=eDyE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-FrLjfihjEc9s11Mbavjf--