Disincentives are as disincentives do.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Jun 07, 2007 4:05 AM EDT |
Rev - You manage to ignore the big gaping black hole in your logic: The GPLV3 doesn't prohibit patent protection. It prohibits patent protection that doesn't apply to all users. If it really is appropriate to use a license to strike against patent law, if you really want to remove disincentive, the license should prohibit any and all forms of patent protection that might apply to GPLd software. |
| dcparris Jun 07, 2007 6:51 AM EDT |
You make a great point, dino. But that would bring out cries of foul play and evil attempts at mass manipulation. Half the community charged the FSF with being a cabal of evil dictators merely for attempting to interfere with the MS-Novell deal. Would they have been tarred and feathered and run out of the country for going so far as you suggest? At the same time, I think the FSF acknowledged long ago that they didn't think they could change the situation, and so better play with the cards dealt. And I still think we're trading in fool's gold. |
| dinotrac Jun 07, 2007 7:01 AM EDT |
Rev - You are correct. They would have killed the goose. But that does make things a little less cut and dry, now doesn't it? The question of whether they have drawn the line correctly is something that time will tell. Fortunately, there is nothing that keeps them from following quickly with GPLV4 if things turn out to be bad instead of merely looking scary before they hit. GPLV2 followed pretty quickly on the heels of the original. |
| mattflaschen Jun 07, 2007 4:58 PM EDT |
Dinotrac, it's impossible to prohibit a third-party patent that a GPL program might infringe. It might be possible to prohibit distributors from having patents, but this is highly undesirable. It would mean patents could not be used by those roughly on our side (Red Hat, IBM, etc.) to fend of Microsoft and other threats. The only real solution is abolishing software patents. |
| dinotrac Jun 07, 2007 5:10 PM EDT |
>The only real solution is abolishing software patents. My point exactly. For the very reasons you state, it is not desirable to divorce free software from patents or patent protection. It is, however, disingenuous to hyperventilate over "other" patent protection. |
| dcparris Jun 07, 2007 5:14 PM EDT |
I don't think Dino is disputing that - just making the point that, by acknowledging software patents to begin with, the GPL is a disincentive in its own right. While I agree to an extent, even Dino understands the FSF would have hurt themselves trying to keep the swpatents out altogether. However, if things are a little less cut and dry, it's only by a very little bit. Nor does it present such a gaping hole that my position fails. |
| dinotrac Jun 07, 2007 5:25 PM EDT |
>Nor does it present such a gaping hole that my position fails. We still have the pig picture. |
| tuxchick Jun 07, 2007 6:18 PM EDT |
OMG dino, you are RUTHLESS. |
| NoDough Jun 07, 2007 6:21 PM EDT |
Quoting:We still have the pig picture.Man am I glad I didn't wear shorts that day! |
| dcparris Jun 07, 2007 6:22 PM EDT |
Well, Carla, you have to realize that picture is Dino's desktop wallpaper. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!