FoxPro & Wine :)

[Patrik Stridvall]

> On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Says who? 

Says close to every business who uses copyright.
Open sourse is not that large yet, you know.

> Why would you think price is *the* fundamental feature?

Because in the end there is really nothing else.
If the work is useful to some extent, somebody will
profit from directly or indirectly. Hopefully the
author will as well...

Futhermore, since if we are to have things like first sale,
which we have, you really can't avoid that somebody converts
each copy you have allowed the distribution of, to money.
(Except by releasing more copies which will at least in theory
drive the price to zero.)

So unless you convert each copy you allow to distribute
to money somebody else will. Note however this is
not nessarily negative for you. Indirectly you might get
more back that would have gotten through direct sale.

> 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.

EULAs tries to restrict, yes. However a copyright license does as well, 
if it, like most copyleft licenses, tries to take back the rights
you have already given up by allowing redistribution of the work
in the first place.

That is what I mean by "trying to both have the cake and eat it".
You have voluntary "eaten the cake" by allowing redistribution of
the work and now you want it back...
 
> 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?

Agreed. However, your argument supports my position concerning LGPL,
more than yours.
 
> 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. 

Exactly, but again, it support my position more than yours.

> 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.

IIRC the Standard Oil problem, was more a refusal to do business at all
unless you cooperated more than anything else. Not really revelevent
to this discussing.

In the case above you have already done business by allowing
redistribution ("eaten the cake") and later through legal
wrangling wants to "have it" back.