Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches

[J.Brown (Ender/Amigo)]

Firstly, I don't quite agree with RMSs philosophy. I like the freedom his
license has given me, as a user and a developer, and I respect his right
to have his own views.

> Here this is so much more clear.
> *My* code. They have stolen from *me*.
> Where are the users's right ?

Ah, here in lies another matter. Let's define two terms (ugh, why do I
always sound so legalistic when I'm just a poor unemployed sysadmin :) - "contributer"
and "user".

> I don't want to say that it is all right to use Gpl code
> in proprietary works. But I think that any legal (real)
> action should - morally - only be done when an
> user has been really wronged.

Well, a user has not necesaraly been wronged by paying for GPL'ed code.
This is allowed. The GPL as a license, is designed to be placed on the
code. When a user buys a boxed product composed of (a/many) GPL works,
he may well be paying for support rights, etc etc.

A contributer may want to protect his hard work by placing the GPL on his
code. That gives a USER the right to request said code, although
the average will probably never need, care, or understand.
Never the less, it's a right they are given. Remembering the timeframe and
context of the GPL and FSF mentality, everyone was a hacker or codemonkey
in those days :)



> I think that a user getting proprietary work including gpl'ed
> code could ask for a court to order the release of the full
> code of the app he bought.

True. At least, the components of the -product- he brought that are
GPL'ed. For example, consider someone buying a boxed copy of RedHat.

> He could ask for getting his money back for all the licenses
> (beyond the first) that he bought, since he had the right
> to manage the installation of additional copies himself.

Possibly, however remember that license may not always be for the
application - it is for the product, including any proprietary works not
GPL'ed, or support rights. It is also however true that the GPL'ed
portion of the code may have no other restrictions placed on it's use.

> But a 'pure' Gpl (not the double licensing sort) developer suing
> for himself, without any actual user wronged, is not morally
> acceptable in my opinion.

In my case, which you have used as a reference here, when I am refering to
'my' work, I am refering to the code I wrote and that many others have
contributed to. The action brought against said company was to protect
the hard work people have put into building a program. No money was
involved, just a condition they release the code with the alterations they
made. Suing a GPL violater for money is another issue completely - I
license most of my own software under the GPL to protect my rights. I
would protect those rights if they were violated - however money does
never come into that equation (except perhaps court costs) :)

Going back to the user, how could a user who brought this infringing
product be benefited from the developer suing? Mostly, they may not. In
other cases, they benefit from the fact the code is again public, and they
have a far easier way to see about getting bugs fixed, etc.. the usual
benefits a good open-source project has.

> The usual argument about Gpl, that courts would not accept the
> action because there is no material interest (money) for Linus
> Torvalds, for example, in Linux, is akin to mine, but my point of
> view is not legalistic.

That's a load of bull, of course. A copyright has been violated.. it's
like with a trademark - if someone violates a trademark, the owner comes
very likely to forgoing his rights on that mark for not enforcing it.

> I think that he is justifying the idea of 'intellectual property':
> copyright infringement is stealing, infringers are thieves (criminals?)
>
> I believe that in your approach (I mean here you, Alexandre Julliard),
> as in the case of the developers I quoted, I have not heard much
> about users rights.

The main business model of Transgaming (and Codeweavers, to a lesser
extent) is selling to normal users, those without the technical ability
to bother with source-code. The GPL is designed to protect developers
rights, their right to benefit (intellectualy) from changes other people
have made to their code. The GPL does not stop a commercial product being
sold - there just must be a way to retrieve the source-code... even if it
involves mailing your proof-of-purcase certificate in. The GPL simply
provides a two-way channel. Contributers developer a product for their own
user. A company markets the product as a 'solution'. Changes get sent back
and forth through source-exchange.

> If you cared that much for users, as  is implied by the Gpl license,
> the work made by Codeweavers for Borland would be repellent :
> yes, the code (all of it ?) has been released to Wine. But Kylix
> users don't have the  possibility to get the Wine source code
> used; they don't have the right to get latest Wine code and
> maybe fix bugs.

I've never used Kylix, but I believe it's a standard winelib application.
There should be a fairly easy upgrade path (correct me if I'm wrong) but
just updating the .so's to the latest version?

Everything else in this mail is getting a little too flamebaity for me, so
I'm going to leave this as is :)

All I wanted was installshield support! :p

 - Ender