gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?


From: 7
Subject: Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 20:44:27 GMT
User-agent: KNode/0.7.2

Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock amicus_curious
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketig:

> 
> "Rjack" <address@hidden> wrote in message
> news:address@hidden
>>> Assume I have the source code for the Linux 2.6 kernel. Suppose I
>>> want to use just a piece of it. How small a piece does it have to be
>>> before I'm no longer violating the GPL?
>>
>>> What my question is really; "At what point does the source code take
>>> on a identifiable identity?" Its written in C (or at least a lot of
>>> it is). Most of the constructs for C are defined in the language. So
>>> you can't point to a specific subroutine or sort or whatever to say
>>> this is copyrighted or its not. My guess is that "prior art" would
>>> cover 95 to 99% of the "uniqueness" of any software product.
>>> Programmers borrow ideas and algorithms constantly.
>>
>> http://community.zdnet.co.uk
blog/0,1000000567,10009357o-2000440676b,00.htm
> 
> I don't think that the question has any practical significance.  Generally
> speaking the purpose of copyrights as well as patents is to protect the
> author's right to derive revenue from the intellectual property.  When it
> comes to a GPL program, you commonly have the following situation:
> 
> 1.  There is a successful commercial program developed, for example Adobe
> Photoshop.  It rises to the top of the heap and becomes a must-have for a
> lot of users who derive some financial benefit from using it, i.e.
> commercial artists and the like.
> 
> 2.  Some more people see the utility of the program and create clones.  A
> lot of times there is a GPL clone, "Gimp", for example, that emulates the
> functionality and ofter the look and feel of the commercial program.  Over
> the years the law has come to allow this sort of thing.
> 
> 3.  The GPL crowd becomes proud of their achievement and a lot of
> non-commercial users fool around with the OSS program and may even
> contribute to it and extend it further to be more compliant with the
> commercial product.  I know of no real situation where the OSS program
> ever became more desirable than the original,


Fscking LIAR!!!

Linux is a great example of an OSS program that emulates Unix and
is ever more desirable than the original.

Proof is in the pudding.

3 million+ Embedded Linux gadgets sold PER DAY.
Some 270 billion dollars in trade.
At least 1 million new Linux desktops installed per week.

http://www.livecdlist.com
http://www.distrowatch.com



> but many OSS fans will
> dispute that and argue about some subjective thing being better but there
> is never any accepted metric.
> 
> Now what does that all mean for the value of the copyright?  First, the
> only really valuable copyright would be held by the original commercial
> vendor
> who gets money for each copy sold.  They are generally the leader and the
> standard of comparison in the market.  The OSS product may be just as
> useful, but user psychology being what it is, it is never seen that way.
> Gimp is a poor man's photoshop in the mind of the beholder.  Maybe ever an
> poor man's Paint Shop Pro.


This is classic examply of a micoshaft corporation sponsored fraud
selling a lemon.

GIMP is free as freedom not free as in price or poor man's choice.
GIMP plugins rival that of any competitor.
And because its open, you are free to extend it as much as you want
unlike the real thing.

Something like Firefox is also free as in freedom.
The plug ins are so powerful and extensive, it negates the need
for commercial products like micoshaft proprietory products.
Negating the need is not the same as poor man's choice either.
Commercial products are built on business models, and when those
business models fail or not as competitive as freedom based
products, you will always see private corporation sponsored whinos
whining away here.


> So do you want to "steal" this code and go into business armed only with a
> clone of a clone?  Some people may think so, but they are sure to lose
> their
> investments quickly.  The commercial success owes its genius more to
> timing
> and user recognition than to any exacting technology.  It is hard to see
> how the OSS fans do not see this. After all, they constantly deride
> Microsoft Windows as being inferior to Linux and only dominant due to its
> marketing and the lack of perception by the buyers, so why would they
> think that some GPL program could be "hijacked" and turned into a raging
> success commercially?


Notice the complete lies being sold here by the typical micoshaft
asstroturfer and fraudster pounding away their socks.

Contrary to what they have to say,
Linux is an absolute run away success.
In the server markets, it is success. In the embedded markets
Linux sells 3 million+ embedded Linux gadgets PER DAY!
Some 270 billion dollars worth of business anually.
If it weren't for Linux, the electronics market in the high
street would not exist. All the high value goods such as flat TVs,
DVD recorders, routers, MP3 players, set top boxes, etc.. all
contain Linux. 75% of all new projects as of 2007 contains open source.
The open source commerce bandwaggon is many orders of magnitude
bigger than any proprietory software bandwaggon.

The world is never going back to proprietory software markets
again. It just a blip and it doesn't work.






reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]