Am 30. Sep, 2002 schwätzte Robert Bushman so:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, der.hans wrote:
>
> > > "Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free
> > > software developers need to make advantages for each other. Using the
> > > ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage
> > > over proprietary developers: a library that they can use, while
> > > proprietary developers cannot use it.
> >
> > It doesn't give us an advantage. They can use it as well, but under the
> > terms of the GPL. I can buy code from Rational Software to use in my
> > products, but I can only use it under the licensing terms of the purchase.
> > There's nothing in the GPL preventing anyone from using GPLd code. In fact,
> > it's explicitly available to anyone.
>
> I'm missing something - according to RMS in the quote
> above, the point of using the GPL on libraries is to
> give an advantage to free software developers over
> proprietary software developers. Yet I know you are
> more familiar with this topic than I, so where am I
> going off track?
I understand his point, but I think he's wrong. We are not preventing them
from using the GPLd code ( as licensed ), so we it doesn't give us an
explicit advantage. We do have somewhat of an implicit advantage because
they probably won't accept the terms of the GPL.
It's splitting hairs, I guess, but we need to make sure other people know we
are not the ones using extortive practices to gain market share.
Using the GPL vs. the LGPL prevents the proprietary vendors from using the
libraries in a non-free manner, just like they won't let me use theirs in a
free manner.
ciao,
der.hans
--
# https://www.LuftHans.com/ http://www.TOLISGroup.com/
# Strangers are friends just waiting to happen!
(text/plain)