On Oct 25, 7:07 pm, "Bill Buckels"  wrote:
> "mdj"  wrote in message
>
> news:650940a3-5151-4eae-9a29-0e1e8c8e3da2{at}w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 24, 11:35 am, "Bill Buckels"  wrote:
>
> >> Back again to Stallman's totalitarianism, and I'll clean that up by
> >> withdrawing the comment altogether, but my point is really
that software
> >> authors should be remunerated as in every profession.
> >There are two major flaws in this statement: one being that remuneration
> >can only be measured in dollars, the other being the completely
> >inappropriate use of the term 'totalitarianism'.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism
>
> The comparison is fair I think. You said it yourself... "the GPL forbids
> linking against
> proprietary software". If it's free it's free...

Of course, there are two GPL licenses: the aforementioned 'infectious'
GPL and the LGPL (L being Lesser). The LGPL has no infection clause.
The majority of libraries on a GNU/Linux system use the LGPL. Why? So
that people may write proprietary software for the platform. So no,
the comparison isn't fair, and frankly, is downright incorrect.

As Stallman puts it: "Think free speech, not free beer"

> Here's one of my CopyLeft notices...


Right. So your license is effectively 'public domain' with a
limitation of warranty statute. Cool.

 >If one appreciates the difference between copyright and license, one
can
> >see how the GPL can in fact be very useful. A classic example is the
> >company TrollTech, who develop the UI library Qt.
>
> I own current Qt licences for both Windows and Linux.  I also own current
> licences for all of Microsoft Language Products. Both are excellent. I don't
> see much difference in their licencing.

The point is Bill, Qt is also available under the GPL, so if you want
to write free software using it, you can, no royalies required.

There's plenty of room for multiple ideologies. Surely you can see the
hypocrisy of insisting the ones you disagree with be destroyed as
they're 'totalitarian' ? ;-)

> >And you call this Totalitarian? :-)
>
> The GPL is just as restrictive in it's own way.

Exactly! and purveyors of proprietary software would not agree that
their model is totalitarian. Ergo, neither is.

> >then you might have an idea of what totalitarian actually means.
>
> Brutal Matt! You remind me of a pitbull.

:-) It looks a lot worse when you cut out the example I gave. Ironic
isn't it that you call me a pitbull, but by not actually responding to
my counter points and simply restating your own, you're actually
practicing 'dogma'

*ducks*

Matt
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32