Re: ONTOPIC - FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT - Not a bunch of licence Jiha...
In a message dated 1/7/2001 11:27:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [ The dict command is your friend ] 1. Exempt from subjection to the will of others; not under restraint, control, or compulsion; able to follow one's own impulses, desires, or inclinations; determining one's own course of action; not dependent; at liberty. 2. Not under an arbitrary or despotic government; subject only to fixed laws regularly and fairly administered, and defended by them from encroachments upon natural or acquired rights; enjoying political liberty. What do you think the average person would interpret "free software" as ? Software that's not opressed, or software that has no cost ? Give me a break. We already have a term for software that just costs no money: "freeware". This is _NOT_ free software. Shareware is not free software. GPLed, BSDed, X11ed, public domain, APSLed (ad infinitum) code is free software, the kind that is not often written for Windows. I would agree with this statement fully in the case of BSD and X11. The other cases do not fulfill the definition of "free." GPL is not free, although it approaches it. GPL, APSL, etc. are subject to the will of the authors. You're idioticly redefining the term "free" to be software with source code and restrictions, rather than no source code and no restrictions. You can't define the language. Free doesn't have a damned thing to do with your value judgements on what's useful, what's "no-value", whether or not it includes source, and whether or not it travels under the restrictions of your "free" licence. You're saying that the only "free" software is open-source software, and that's a pretty damned closed minded point of view. I've I'm afraid you are the victim of a "pretty damned closed minded point of view." "Free" binaries are under the restraint, control, and compulsion of the author. the user is unable to determine the course of action. If I cannot freely change the function of a program, it is not "free". If I must perform other actions as a result of my modifications, it is not "free." I am being compelled to perform. This is not "free." Oh, but other "free" (open source) software has no restraints, controls, or compulsions right ? Then what's the point of having the licence ? If I may repeat what you just said again: If I must perform other actions as a result of my modifications, it is not "free." I am being compelled to perform. This is not "free." a.. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. b.. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. Those sure seem to be compulsions. They are small and simple, but they are compulsions. So even BSD licenced software is not truly "free software" by your foolish definitions. X11 and this permission notice appear in all copies of the Software and that both the above copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation X11 has the same restrictions. Although including the licence in future copies is no big thing, it's still a restriction, and by your own words: "If I must perform other actions as a result of my modifications, it is not 'free'". Now lets hear you rephrase your words to try to become less ambigous about the definition of "free" and how it interacts with the restrictions of the BSD and/or X11 licences. Maybe you can tell us how they are "more free". That's always fun, to listen to people rant about levels of "freeness". I dunno who has it, but here's a cool little program called MultiRes... it's like QuickRes, but it's for Windows 2000, and supports refresh rates and shit. Oh, and Stox and Feldman need to, like, sit on a tack or something... multires.exe
Re: ONTOPIC - FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT - Not a bunch of licence Jiha...
Hi Could you people please take this flamewar off our lists? Thanks! M --part1_f8.65bd20b.278a2f74_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/7/2001 11:27:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [ The dict command is your friend ] 1. Exempt from subjection to the will of others; not under restraint, control, or compulsion; able to follow one's own impulses, desires, or inclinations; determining one's own course of action; not dependent; at liberty. 2. Not under an arbitrary or despotic government; subject only to fixed laws regularly and fairly administered, and defended by them from encroachments upon natural or acquired rights; enjoying political liberty. What do you think the average person would interpret "free software" as ? Software that's not opressed, or software that has no cost ? Give me a break. We already have a term for software that just costs no money: "freeware". This is _NOT_ free software. Shareware is not free software. GPLed , BSDed, X11ed, public domain, APSLed (ad infinitum) code is free software, the kind that is not often written for Windows. I would agree with this statement fully in the case of BSD and X11. The other cases do not fulfill the definition of "free." GPL is not free, although it approaches it. GPL, APSL, etc. are subject to the will of th e authors. You're idioticly redefining the term "free" to be software with source code and restrictions, rather than no source code and no restrictions. You can't define the language. Free doesn't have a damned thing to do with your value judgements on what's useful, what's "no-value", whether or not it includes source, and whether or not it travels under the restrictions of your "free" licence. You're saying that the only "free" software is open-source software, and that's a pretty damned closed minded point of view. I'v e I'm afraid you are the victim of a "pretty damned closed minded point of view." "Free" binaries are under the restraint, control, and compulsion of the author. the user is unable to determine the course of action. If I cannot freely change the function of a program, it is not "free". If I must perform other actions as a result of my modifications, it is not "free." I am being compelled to perform. This is not "free." Oh, but other "free" (open source) software has no restraints, controls, o r compulsions right ? Then what's the point of having the licence ? If I may repeat what you just said again: If I must perform other actions as a result of my modifications, it is not "free." I am being compelled to perform. This is not "free." a.. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. b.. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. Those sure seem to be compulsions. They are small and simple, but they ar e compulsions. So even BSD licenced software is not truly "free software" b y your foolish definitions. X11 and this permission notice appear in all copies of the Software and that both the above copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation X11 has the same restrictions. Although including the licence in future copies is no big thing, it's still a restriction, and by your own words: "If I must perform other actions as a result of my modifications, it is not 'free'". Now lets hear you rephrase your words to try to become less ambigous about the definition of "free" and how it interacts with the restrictions of the BSD and/or X11 licences. Maybe you can tell us how they are "more free". That's always fun, to listen to people rant about levels of "freeness". I dunno who has it, but here's a cool little program called MultiRes... it's like QuickRes, but it's for Windows 2000, and supports refresh rates and shit. Oh, and Stox and Feldman need to, like, sit on a tack or something... --part1_f8.65bd20b.278a2f74_boundary Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="multires.exe" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="multires.exe" TVpQAAIEAA8A//8AALgAQAAa AAEAALoQAA4ftAnNIbgBTM0hkJBUaGlzIHByb2dyYW0gbXVzdCBiZSBydW4gdW5k ZXIgV2luMzINCiQ3
