Is Microsoft anti-GPL ?
From: hutch-- (hutch_at_movsd.com)
Date: 12/13/04
- Next message: Dunny: "Re: Adventure Game Engine (AGE) v0.1 is now ready"
- Previous message: Beth: "Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?"
- Next in thread: Bob McConnell: "Re: Is Microsoft anti-GPL ?"
- Reply: Bob McConnell: "Re: Is Microsoft anti-GPL ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 13 Dec 2004 01:21:23 -0800
Same apologies for placement etc ... something broken in google.
Bob,
Understand I have no beef with you but I do disagree with you in terms
of emphasis on the comparison between the two licencing systems.
==================================================
Excuse me, but open source code was available long before Microsoft
was established. All of the basic TCP/IP and Internet protocols were
originally developed as open source drivers and applications. It was
Microsoft that decided to lock them up and charge exhorbitant prices
for them.
==================================================
Excuse me but public domain software, commercial freeware, academic
freeware, academic research, personal freeware and the like do NOT
have GPL, Stallman's fantasy or the like as their successor. I have
regularly worked on algo design from the 60s, 70s and 80s and NONE of
it is contained by a then non existent GPL licencing system.
==================================================
Excuse me, but open source code was available long before Microsoft
was established. All of the basic TCP/IP and Internet protocols were
originally developed as open source drivers and applications. It was
Microsoft that decided to lock them up and charge exhorbitant prices
for them.
==================================================
The RFCs are still available and Microsoft own none of them as far as
I know, what they add is their own business and again, the RFCs
predate GPL by a reasonable amount of time.
==================================================
But when was the last time Micro$oft gave you source code for any of
their video drivers, so you could optimise your code to work better
with them? When did they publish source for COM+ or DCOM to make it
possible for you to make your code work faster? Don't hold your
breath.
==================================================
Device driver kits are full of Microsoft owned source code that is
made available to driver developers under licence and DDKs are not for
sale, they are free. You pay for the media and shipping. I cannot help
you with COM and the like as I am not interested.
==================================================
You are wrong here. You can write anything you want with GPL tools and
LPGL libraries, and sell it, give it away, or burn it. Only if you
base your components on source code that is already under the GPL does
the result also have to be under GPL. As long as you write the entire
application yourself, or use code that you already own or otherwise
have full rights to use, there is no requirement to publish your code
under the GPL. In that mode, there is no difference between buying
Visual C++ or downloading gcc.
==================================================
This condition is nearly vacuuous of content, very few have the
capacity to completely create software from scratch when it comes to
libraries and source code. This means that the vast majority of people
who try and use GPL tools have no option but to be trapped under the
conditions of the licence whether they like it or not. Use ANY PART of
GPL code and they OWN your software under the conditions of the
licence.
As far as the difference between VC and GCC, VC gives you the right to
use extra material directly from Microsoft if you are inteested, GCC
does not.
==================================================
The so called restrictions of the GPL are actually requirements to
support the additional rights that license grants. Without the GPL,
you can't use the software at all. With the GPL, you may use it in any
way you wish, even modify it to your heart's content. But, if you also
want to distribute programs with those modifications, you must comply
with the requirements that are associated with that right. You can't
simply pass it off as your own work. This is what Micro$oft does not
like.
==================================================
Restrictions by any other name are restrictions and the GPL licence
once you get past the term redefinitions and waffle contains severe
restrictions on use. I call the condition of owning the code that you
write "severe". What is regularly confused with the less than honest
layout of the GNU licence is the notion of how it uses the term FREE.
Free to use as an application but definitely NOT free to developers to
use. As far as Microsoft's view on GPL code, I get the general
impression that they see it as mediocre in technical terms. With the
massive share of the PC market, I imagine they are in the position to
hold that view whether its true or not.
I do something that GPL people often seem not to do and that is draw
the distinction between commercial operating systems and a GPL
operating system, I can live with both as I see them as different and
I see that both have their place.
GPL made LINUX possible so its not without its uses but where it tries
to take over the entire software industry, it will get massive
resistence as it has little to offer the wider market that created the
PC revolution many years ago. It was DOS and Windows that put the PC
market on the map, not the mess that UNIX was in at the time and whole
generations of programmers will not suddenly allow themselves to be
under the thumb of a licence that has little to offer them.
I get little time these day to write direct application code as the
project I maintain is a never ending workload on my spare time but I
still keep a number of freeware toys available for download to end
users and for years I used to get enquiries about "where is the
source" or "can I have a copy of the source".
I long ago made the capacity available in the project but no-one is
interested in the capacity or the examples on HOW to write the code
when they ask for the "source", they are interested in the "concept"
and want it without doing the work to get it.
that is my view in a nutshell on Windows based GPL, freeloading to get
something they did not create and the desire to control it without
having put in the work to get it off the ground in the first place.
Regards,
hutch at movsd dot com
- Next message: Dunny: "Re: Adventure Game Engine (AGE) v0.1 is now ready"
- Previous message: Beth: "Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?"
- Next in thread: Bob McConnell: "Re: Is Microsoft anti-GPL ?"
- Reply: Bob McConnell: "Re: Is Microsoft anti-GPL ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
