Quote:Original post by LodeDon't worry... I'm sure Americans would never allow their freedoms to be hindered to such an extreme degree... I think. [wink]Quote:Original post by Tron3kQuote:Original post by LodeIt wouldn't apply in Belgium. Even if you were in the US, it wouldn't make your games illegal, it would make the GPL non-effective, I suppose.
Does this mean all my games that use SDL will be illegal?
If I write a game, I don't want U.S. players to be unable to play it.
GPL Sued For "Software Price Fixing"
Quote:Original post by capn_midnight
however, you are missing the point. This isn't about what people do with the GPL, this is about how the FSF has created the GPL in the first place and encouraged companies to use the GPL. If you want people to make derivative works of your work, and blah blah blah, then that's fine, this lawsuit will not stop that. What it will stop is the FSF pushing the GPL and "colluding" with software companies to "fix prices" at $0.
FSF is no FORCING anyone to use their GPL software. For example, in my case, I decided to use other NON GPL libraries, or write my own code, just so that I can have the freedom to distribute my code under non GPL licenses. Eternal Lands, for example, doesn't use any GPL library or application (external tools don't count).
Quote:Original post by RaduprvQuote:Original post by capn_midnight
however, you are missing the point. This isn't about what people do with the GPL, this is about how the FSF has created the GPL in the first place and encouraged companies to use the GPL. If you want people to make derivative works of your work, and blah blah blah, then that's fine, this lawsuit will not stop that. What it will stop is the FSF pushing the GPL and "colluding" with software companies to "fix prices" at $0.
FSF is no FORCING anyone to use their GPL software. For example, in my case, I decided to use other NON GPL libraries, or write my own code, just so that I can have the freedom to distribute my code under non GPL licenses. Eternal Lands, for example, doesn't use any GPL library or application (external tools don't count).
collusion is not forcing, it's working cooperatively.
Quote:Original post by RaduprvQuote:Original post by capn_midnight
technically a pie is a derivative work of flour, apples, sugar, etc. Used cars with aftermarket upgrades are derivative works.
Not really.
The issue here is that if you get RH_sugar, RH_pples and RH_flour, you must make the cookies, pies, etc. used with those RH_products to be free as well (and impose other derivates to also be free).
However, if you use YOUR_OWN_sugar, apples and flour, you can do whatever you want with YOUR_OWN_pie.
This is not MY_flour. This is GENERAL_MILLS_flour. Are you saying that General Mills should have the ability to say "You may only make cookies with our flour, you may not make cakes, and your recipe for cookies must be given away for free."
Quote:Original post by capn_midnight
This is not MY_flour. This is GENERAL_MILLS_flour. Are you saying that General Mills should have the ability to say "You may only make cookies with our flour, you may not make cakes, and your recipe for cookies must be given away for free."
Do you get it for free?
If so, it's their right to impose whatever restrictions they see fit.
If you pay for it, then it becomes CAPN_MIDNIGHT_flour.
Many companies that create GPL software also offer a non GPL license, if you are willing to pay for it.
Yes, they are not the ONLY maker, if you don't like thier terms, find someone else that offers terms you DO like.
Don't like the terms that car companies offer? Like, really, you don't like having to pay for your car, or not being able to swap the motor out and keep your warrenty. Why shouldn't you be allowed to buy say a KIA and then stick a twin turbin-eletric engine in it and still expect KIA to service it?
Don't like the terms that car companies offer? Like, really, you don't like having to pay for your car, or not being able to swap the motor out and keep your warrenty. Why shouldn't you be allowed to buy say a KIA and then stick a twin turbin-eletric engine in it and still expect KIA to service it?
To make my example more eloquent, say we are in kindergarten, and I give you MY toy for FREE. If I do so, I can impose various restrictions, such as:
You may not give the toy to Joe, because I hate him.
You may not resell it
If you improve my toy, you also have to give me a copy of that improved toy.
Now, you have the right to disagree with my conditions, and not take my toy.
You may also offer to BUY my toy, so you won't be subjected to my restrictions.
But if you go to the teacher and ask her to kick me out, because my toy is preventing other kids from selling their toys, well, this is unresonable.
You may not give the toy to Joe, because I hate him.
You may not resell it
If you improve my toy, you also have to give me a copy of that improved toy.
Now, you have the right to disagree with my conditions, and not take my toy.
You may also offer to BUY my toy, so you won't be subjected to my restrictions.
But if you go to the teacher and ask her to kick me out, because my toy is preventing other kids from selling their toys, well, this is unresonable.
Quote:Original post by Talroththat's not the issue at all, I can still put that engine in the KIA, KIA just washes their hands of me. With the GPL, there are things you just can't do without being in violation of the GPL and being ordered to cease and decist (that is, if the GPL is enforceable, which is not know for a fact). And that still doesn't address KIA trying to run Ford out of business just because KIA thinks Ford is immoral, unethical, or downright evil for charging for their cars.
Yes, they are not the ONLY maker, if you don't like thier terms, find someone else that offers terms you DO like.
Don't like the terms that car companies offer? Like, really, you don't like having to pay for your car, or not being able to swap the motor out and keep your warrenty. Why shouldn't you be allowed to buy say a KIA and then stick a twin turbin-eletric engine in it and still expect KIA to service it?
Quote:Original post by Raduprv
To make my example more eloquent, say we are in kindergarten, and I give you MY toy for FREE. If I do so, I can impose various restrictions, such as:
You may not give the toy to Joe, because I hate him.
You may not resell it
If you improve my toy, you also have to give me a copy of that improved toy.
Now, you have the right to disagree with my conditions, and not take my toy.
You may also offer to BUY my toy, so you won't be subjected to my restrictions.
But if you go to the teacher and ask her to kick me out, because my toy is preventing other kids from selling their toys, well, this is unresonable.
But you expect to get your toy back. if you give me the toy, gratis, with no expectation of recieving it back from me, then you have gifted me the toy, and hold no rights over it whatsoever.
Author
Quote:Original post by capn_midnight
This is not MY_flour. This is GENERAL_MILLS_flour. Are you saying that General Mills should have the ability to say "You may only make cookies with our flour, you may not make cakes, and your recipe for cookies must be given away for free."
yes. free or not, you agree to some sort of license. if you don't like this flour then you can find flour with a license that better suits your needs.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
