Board index » kylix » Re: The future..

Re: The future..


2004-01-21 03:55:28 AM
kylix0
"Mike Mormando" wrote:
Quote
Now, I agree with you that it can't downloaded for free, and I'm
not sure how that can be reconciled with GPL either.
You have the wrong perception of GPL'ed software. It doesn't prevent you
from asking money for it. It even allows you to ask money for GPL'ed
software written by others ( But why would I pay you if I can get it for
free? But the GPL allowes you to sell me GPL'ed software without one line of
your own code.). The GPL however forces you, when you distribute the GPL'ed
software, also to distribute the source. Even your own source when it is
(partly) based on GPL'ed software! This doesn't stop you from writing
proprietary software wich runs on GPL'ed software like Linux. As long as you
don't base it (partly) on GPL'ed software. You can base your own software on
GPL'ed software without making your code public by not distributing it. Much
in-house developed software, not ment to be distributed, is based on GPL'ed
software.
Peter
PS. Imagine what happens when Uncle Bill accidentally includes some GPL'ed
software in Windows without re-inventing the wheel again ;-).
 
 

Re:Re: The future..

"Peter Agricola" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
You have the wrong perception of GPL'ed software. It doesn't prevent you
from asking money for it.
Money is not the problem.
The problem is the distribution terms of the Lindows OS license; an OS which
contains a lot of GPL'ed code. Terms which differ pretty dramatically from
the GPL.
If I add a proprietary shell script to a Linux distribution, can I then
re-license and re-distribute the whole thing on my terms rather than the
GPL?
 

Re:Re: The future..

"JQP" wrote:
Quote
The problem is the distribution terms of the Lindows OS license; an OS
which
contains a lot of GPL'ed code. Terms which differ pretty dramatically from
the GPL.

If I add a proprietary shell script to a Linux distribution, can I then
re-license and re-distribute the whole thing on my terms rather than the
GPL?
You can never re-licence. I do not know Lindows but if they distrubute the
linux kernel with base tools (like X) and a proprietary desktop and Win32
runtime they are delevering not one product but a collection of products.
Every product can have it's own licence. The prohibition of redistributing
can not be applied to the GPL'ed core but it can to their own
desktop/runtime, which is what people consider to be Lindows.
Peter
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: The future..

Quote
And if you'll note, Lindows is not really *free* --- as in beer or speech.

Of course you are right. But we are discussing "the future move into
Linux" and not "the future move into open source". We are a Borland
group and neither Borland nor a great part of their customers wants to
move into the open source world. They just need to provide their
offerings to customers that moved their desktops to be Linux based.
-Michael
 

Re:Re: The future..

Quote
Yes, the key word being "personal" as defined under the "Family" license.
Under this license, you're still not "free" to give it to friends or anyone
outside your "family". Not very GPL friendly IMO.

The GPL is not at all about "not giving it to ....". It's about
"delivering it only with the source code".
The "sticky" GPL for "Linux" (the Kernel) says that everything that is
statically linked to the Kernel automatically gets GPLed, too. This is
not at all the case for any _applications_ (Like user programs or
installation tools). Otherwise we could not sell closed source Borland
compiled programs to our customers and would have no need for Kylix and
such.
-Michael
 

Re:Re: The future..

JQP wrote:
Quote
"Peter Agricola" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news:400d87a6$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>You have the wrong perception of GPL'ed software. It doesn't prevent you
>from asking money for it.

Money is not the problem.

The problem is the distribution terms of the Lindows OS license; an OS
which contains a lot of GPL'ed code. Terms which differ pretty
dramatically from the GPL.

If I add a proprietary shell script to a Linux distribution, can I then
re-license and re-distribute the whole thing on my terms rather than the
GPL?
FUD. Read the licence, especially the first sentence of point 8.
B
--
www.mailtrap.org.uk/
 

Re:Re: The future..

JQP wrote:
Quote
If I add a proprietary shell script to a Linux distribution, can I then
re-license and re-distribute the whole thing on my terms rather than the
GPL?
no.
Martin
 

Re:Re: The future..

"Bob { Goddard }" wrote:
Quote
JQP wrote:

>"Peter Agricola" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
>news:400d87a6$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>>You have the wrong perception of GPL'ed software. It doesn't prevent
you
>>from asking money for it.
>
>Money is not the problem.
>
>The problem is the distribution terms of the Lindows OS license; an OS
>which contains a lot of GPL'ed code. Terms which differ pretty
>dramatically from the GPL.
>
>If I add a proprietary shell script to a Linux distribution, can I then
>re-license and re-distribute the whole thing on my terms rather than the
>GPL?

FUD.
To what are you reffering?
Quote
Read the licence, especially the first sentence of point 8.
Wich licence?
Please be more clear.
Peter
 

Re:Re: The future..

JQP wrote:
Quote
"Peter Agricola" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news:400d87a6$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

>You have the wrong perception of GPL'ed software. It doesn't prevent you
>from asking money for it.


Money is not the problem.

The problem is the distribution terms of the Lindows OS license; an OS which
contains a lot of GPL'ed code. Terms which differ pretty dramatically from
the GPL.

If I add a proprietary shell script to a Linux distribution, can I then
re-license and re-distribute the whole thing on my terms rather than the
GPL?
I don't see how proprietary a shell script is ? It seems very open
source by it's nature ;-).
Micha.
 

Re:Re: The future..

Peter Agricola wrote:
Quote

"Bob { Goddard }" wrote:
>JQP wrote:
>
>>"Peter Agricola" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
>>news:400d87a6$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>>>You have the wrong perception of GPL'ed software. It doesn't prevent
you
>>>from asking money for it.
>>
>>Money is not the problem.
>>
>>The problem is the distribution terms of the Lindows OS license; an OS
>>which contains a lot of GPL'ed code. Terms which differ pretty
>>dramatically from the GPL.
>>
>>If I add a proprietary shell script to a Linux distribution, can I then
>>re-license and re-distribute the whole thing on my terms rather than
>>the GPL?
>
>FUD.

To what are you reffering?

>Read the licence, especially the first sentence of point 8.

Wich licence?
Please be more clear.
www.lindows.com/lindows_products_OSEULA.php
It quite clearly states that their license includes all others
for the products contained within it.
You may also want to read part "1.2 Third Party Agreements".
It also states that programs may be subject to others
licenses and that these take precedence over Lindows.
Like I said, JQP spouts FUD again.
B
--
www.mailtrap.org.uk/
 

Re:Re: The future..

"Bob { Goddard }" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news:bulre8$jdobo$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
You may also want to read part "1.2 Third Party Agreements".
It also states that programs may be subject to others
licenses and that these take precedence over Lindows.
Ok, that explains how their license gets reconciled with the GPL.
Quote
Like I said, JQP spouts FUD again.
Is it FUD that the Lindows license requires "business" users to pay either
"per seat" or "per computer"? If so, please explain why?
 

Re:Re: The future..

"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Is it FUD that the Lindows license requires "business" users to pay either
"per seat" or "per computer"? If so, please explain why?
Sorry, that should be either "per user" or "per computer".
 

Re:Re: The future..

JQP wrote:
Quote
"Bob { Goddard }" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news:bulre8$jdobo$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>You may also want to read part "1.2 Third Party Agreements".
>It also states that programs may be subject to others
>licenses and that these take precedence over Lindows.

Ok, that explains how their license gets reconciled with the GPL.

>Like I said, JQP spouts FUD again.

Is it FUD that the Lindows license requires "business" users to pay either
"per seat" or "per computer"? If so, please explain why?
Quote...
The problem is the distribution terms of the Lindows OS license; an OS
which contains a lot of GPL'ed code. Terms which differ pretty
dramatically from the GPL.

If I add a proprietary shell script to a Linux distribution, can I then
re-license and re-distribute the whole thing on my terms rather than the
GPL?
This is the FUD you are spreading. There is also NOTHING in the GPL
which states you cannot charge for software it applies to.
B
--
www.mailtrap.org.uk/
 

Re:Re: The future..

"Bob { Goddard }" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news:bulvpq$j20j9$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
This is the FUD you are spreading.
Note the question mark (?) at the end of my post. I was questioning how the
Lindows license is reconciled with the GPL. You answered my question.
Where's the FUD in this?
Quote
There is also NOTHING in the GPL
which states you cannot charge for software it applies to.
Yes, I understand and I quote from my earlier post, "Money is not the
problem".
 

Re:Re: The future..

Quote
That sentence says it all. It seems like Borland management has bet the
farm on .Net. Meanwhile the rest of the world is rapidly adapting Linux as
the desktop and business server of the future. Borland employees should be
here improving Kylix rather then in borland.public.delphi.non-technical
{*word*3} their future on an unproven technology.


I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. It's so obvious what they
*could* do. Since m$ has turned the CLR and C# over to a standards
body anyone is free to clone them. The problem is winForms and
ADO.net are not. This is where Borland comes in and saves the day.
The make the VCL and dbExpress along with their BDP run on both m$.net
and mono. I've got to imagine since they gave away things like the
TDataset abstraction in their patent swap with m$ that they got
somtething back. Like maybe rights to port .net?