![]() Just downloading one of those files tells the people encoding them as such that their behavior is acceptable. There are other better players for other formats. # The only media you need WMP for is Windows-specific media. You really vote by not purchasing WM content.” WMP is just a tool to view media, most of which is either streamed or just encoded in WM format without DRM. “Also the only time you give up your individual liberties is when you purchase some DRM raped media file eternally tied to WMP. Guess what? I don’t go to those websites either… On another level, using IE does the same thing, by encouraging web site designers to code non-compliant web pages, thus discouraging the use of other browsers. The individual liberty of people to choose alternative Oses has been greatly stifled by such carelessness. Stifled competition in the Office Suite market is largely thanks to people like you who support proprietary formats. Ask people why Open Office isn’t quite there yet and one of the reasons you will get is lack of complete Word compatability, although it has improved greatly. # Obviously coming from someone with little historical perspective. “Personally I think it’s stupid to say I won’t use WMP to play a video because of proprietary format issues.” Again, I ask, what could be of such earth-shattering importance? # The only way I would install Real Player on my computer was if someone held a gun to my head and even then I would consider the fact that the afterlife might be more pleasant. “… if you want to view any kind of streaming media format on the web you either have to use WMP, RealPlayer or Quicktime.” # Porn is so ubiquitous, both in content and availability in open formats, that that is a rather ridiculous statement. It seems to me the GPL clause about derived works is overly vague and only a court could make a proper interpretation. ![]() Mozilla is able to load closed source plugins. ![]() However, there are a number of closed source Linux kernel modules. I believe there is some legal precedent for module interfaces not being copywritable (although I believe they can be patented), but I don’t know specifics and I’m certainly not a lawyer. I e-mailed the FSF for clarification on their interpretation of this matter and they never replied. I have not yet been able to find if dynamic linking constitutes a derived work, and opinions vary wildly on this issue. As for the FSF’s interpretation (which is somewhat irrelevant compared to what a court’s interpretation would be, although it’d be nice to know what they will or won’t sue you for) they don’t provide any sort of direction as to what constitutes a derived work that I’ve been able to find. This is a terribly sticky issue with the GPL, and at this time there is no legal precedent as to what constitutes a derived work. You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. Here is the relevant clause from the GPL: I believe the phrase you’re looking for is “derived work”. Isnt a plugin “linking” according to the FSF?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |