Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On April 22, 2003 01:17 am, Dan Kegel wrote:
It may not be, but at least it brings it into the realm of Microsoft moves we've seen before. (cf. MFC dlls, which are never distributed with Windows itself, and may legally tie all MFC apps to run on Windows alone, if the MFC EULA holds. Or so I recall.)
And the question is: is this enforceable?
And the answer is: if it isn't, neither is the (L)GPL. Why would MS not be able to place restrictions on distribution of their own copyrighted code?
With risk of rekindling the LGPL debate, I have to agree.
Both the Wine LGPL issue and the Microsoft "DLL" redistribution issue above have one thing in common: "Somebody is both trying to have the cake and eat it."
I have a long time, invain it seems, been trying to argue that copyright law neither:
1. Should (from a sane public policy point of view) 2. Intends (from what copyright traditionally is meant for) 3. Does (from a strict, by the letter, analysis on the law)
support the view that it is allowed to both "have the cake and eat it".
Very, very simplified. You have basicly have two choices: 1. Distribute your work (or part of it) for free 2. Distribute your work (or part of it) for a fee. if you choose (1) because you for some reason doesn't think (2) is to your advantages you have no right to complain that things didn't work out as you hoped.
In the Microsoft Visual FoxPro it is quite obvious that demanding a fee for the "runtime" would reduce the number of developers using the product, so they didn't. Now they have to live with the consequences...
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
Very, very simplified. You have basicly have two choices:
- Distribute your work (or part of it) for free
- Distribute your work (or part of it) for a fee.
Says who? Why would you think price is *the* fundamental feature? Copyright law gives you rights (by restricting other's rights) so that you could use them, if you so desire, to get some money for your work. Copyleft just says you give up some of your rights, EULA restricts. Which is fine, but within limits -- it's much harder (legally) to take from people than to give.
As I said, why would we want to give the manufacturer of a TV set the right to tell me what programs I'm allowed to watch on my TV? Or what brand of gas to put in my car. Or what brand of detergent in my washing machine?
Having generally accepted interfaces (steering wheel, pedals, and stick for a car, gas of certain octane, etc) is good because it allows for multiple implementations == competition. But this works as long as you can't restrict what *implementations* you're allowed to use. I don't know my histroy right, but I believe this sort of restrictions (among other things) allowed Rockefeller to build his Standard Oil monopolistic empire, and is now illegal.
-
Dimitrie O. Paun -
Patrik Stridvall