[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Binary only distribution *inhibits* changes, and makes them *harder*,
without making them strictly impossible. The GPL says that the costs
of including source are trivial--an extra CD, and therefore requires
you to share them.
It may be
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Binary only distribution *inhibits* changes, and makes them *harder*,
without making them strictly impossible. The GPL says that the costs
of including source are trivial--an extra CD, and
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Of course, now I need to understand why you think the
forced-disclosure requirement is reasonable and the tax-return one
isn't.
No, I think sending your tax return to the author of some program you
modify is mind-bogglingly stupid, whereas
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
then you have to say which restrictions you think are
acceptible and which you think aren't. I've sketched out my method of
analyzing such a question, but you haven't. Would you care to do so
please?
No, I'm sorry; I reserve my right to do
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:21:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
No, I'm sorry; I reserve my right to do so on a case-by-case basis.
I've given a specific case. Can you articulate why a you must give
me your tax return if possible, and costs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Software is a social artifact with significant social consequences,
and therefore ought to be responsive to social pressures (i.e., not
just individuals).
[...]
My favorite is the first, which is
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:19:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 08:01:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The fundamental premise of free software is that copyright is an
artificial limitation on what I can do whit a piece of software, and
that I should be able to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But despite the above I do want to point out that the argument
about the only thing stopping the possessor can easily (and,
IMHO, more justifiably) be used against the GPL and in favor of
BSD-style
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 08:28:37AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:27:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
1) The freedom to take away other poeple's freedom, and
Number (1) is a real imposition, but not a real freedom.
The freedom to XXX is not a real freedom.
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 05:21:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Sure; it's a plainly stupid idea. No one's seriously advocating it,
and it doesn't benefit anyone. Please at least come up with examples
that are vaguely _plausible_.
[...]
Which is to say: sending your tax return to someone when
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
If you want that formulated as a principle, as though that makes it
somehow better, I've already said:
] Sending your tax return, or your latest entries
] in your diary, or whatever, to someone random and sending your changes
] to some
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But despite the above I do want to point out that the argument
about the only thing stopping the possessor can easily (and,
IMHO, more justifiably) be used
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 08:17:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It passes the written DFSG.
So, you'd accept Thomas's tax return as DFSG-free, then?
Not everything that passes the DFSG as written is free -- that's why
they're guidelines, not a definition -- but I think it's fair for the
null
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 08:01:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 06:08:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The GPL's source distribution requirement actually augments the
freedom of the possessor of the code
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [030317 10:20]:
I don't think so; the fundamental premise of free software is:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
The fundamental premise of free software is that copyright is an
artificial limitation on what I can do whit a piece of software, and
that I should be able to modify it and copy it.
That's debatable, of course. One can get to free software via
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But despite the above I do want to point out that the argument about
the only thing stopping the possessor can easily (and, IMHO, more
justifiably) be used against the GPL and in favor of BSD-style
licensing. Simply s/possessor/possessor of source/ to see
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
I don't think so; the fundamental premise of free software is:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But despite the above I do want to point out that the argument about
the only thing stopping the possessor can easily (and, IMHO, more
justifiably) be used against the GPL and in favor of BSD-style
licensing. Simply s/possessor/possessor of source/ to
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Software is a social artifact with significant social consequences,
and therefore ought to be responsive to social pressures (i.e., not
just individuals).
[...]
My favorite is the first, which is why I think freedoms should attach
to use. I'm
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:27:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
1) The freedom to take away other poeple's freedom, and
Number (1) is a real imposition, but not a real freedom.
The freedom to XXX is not a real freedom.
Look, I know it's fun to redefine words so that you can pretend
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Look, I know it's fun to redefine words so that you can pretend whatever
you're arguing against is a contradiction in terms, but it doesn't
go anywhere. Maybe *you* think that the *ability* to take away other
people's freedom isn't a freedom, but
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:44:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Then, please, describe for me what your standard is. What freedoms
count?
If I felt confident being able to do that in advance, I'd be writing up
a Debian Free Software Definition that defined them.
You seem to take the
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
You have articulated a difference between cannot and don't want
to, but as I think I showed, that difference doesn't bear up in this
case.
You haven't made any arguments that don't apply equally well to the GPL
as compared to the BSD.
Yes I
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 06:08:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The GPL's source distribution requirement actually augments the
freedom of the possessor of the code
You say that like the possessor of the code is somehow special, but
the user of the code, and the author of the code aren't.
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 06:08:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The GPL's source distribution requirement actually augments the
freedom of the possessor of the code
You say that like the possessor of the code is somehow special, but
the
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
It passes the written DFSG. Not everything that passes the DFSG as
written is free -- that's why they're guidelines, not a definition --
but I think it's fair for the null hypothesis to be satisfies the DFSG
as written = free, and expect people who
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 02:44:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
It passes the written DFSG. Not everything that passes the DFSG as
written is free -- that's why they're guidelines, not a definition --
but I think it's fair for the null
Steve Langasek said:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:55:44PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The argument is that //rmi.bar.com/Bar is a GPL'd program, and this
java application (under whatever license; say BSD) makes use of it.
Now, it seems clear that this application is, in fact, linking to Bar.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:54:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Seriously, you're welcome to hate the clause all you like; there are
people out there who hate BSD licensing and others who hate GPL licensing.
You do need something stronger than a firm opinion and a lot of repetition
to declare
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 04:17:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:54:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Seriously, you're welcome to hate the clause all you like; there are
people out there who hate BSD licensing and others who hate GPL licensing.
You do need
* Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030313 06:15]:
People who develop GPL code do so with the understanding that nobody can
take that code and make it proprietary. This is the fundamental, basic,
ultimate reason people use the GPL instead of less restrictive licenses.
But we (at least I) also
[I screwed up and sent this to Glenn first, apologies]
I'd also like to ask a clarification of scope question: Are we discussing
whether:
1) The GPLv2 should be interpreted to treat RPC calls as creating a combined
work?
2) The GPLv3+ should be altered to make RPC calls create a combined work
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:45:15PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
1) The GPLv2 should be interpreted to treat RPC calls as creating a combined
work?
2) The GPLv3+ should be altered to make RPC calls create a combined work
explicitly?
I'm not sure if the combined work is relevant, here. It's
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
People who develop GPL code do so with the understanding that nobody can
take that code and make it proprietary. This is the fundamental, basic,
ultimate reason people use the GPL instead of less restrictive licenses.
Such people are idiots. I develop
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 04:34 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Right, so here's what I'll do. I'll create a non-free derivative of
GNU Foo, which adds a splendid text-manipulation function that many
people want. And I'll write a CGI so that
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:48:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Or how about this: If you have $100 in your bank account, then you
must send it to the author of the program as soon as you have the
ability, otherwise, you can use the
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:45:15PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
I'd also like to ask a clarification of scope question: Are we discussing
whether:
1) The GPLv2 should be interpreted to treat RPC calls as creating a combined
work?
2) The GPLv3+ should be altered to make RPC calls create a
On Thursday 13 March 2003 03:45 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 04:34 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Right, so here's what I'll do. I'll create a non-free derivative of
[...]
I know you meant this as a code hijacking
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 03:55:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
That discriminates against people with money in their bank accounts.
The tax return thing probably discriminates against people who pay
tax. Personally, I'm happy to let the
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:42:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
So far, I'm just saying that I think requiring release of server if an RPC
call is made from a Free work is a Bad Thing on general principles.
That's not possible. If I write a server, and put it up one the web,
there's no law
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:50:54PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
In the case of Google, their releasing source simply doesn't let me
improve Google--period.
This is entirely misleading.
Microsoft releasing the source code to Windows doesn't let you improve
Windows--period, in this sense
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:49:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
So IIUC, Anthony Towns is especially exercised by the alleged
difficulty with the QPL's apparent forced publication requirement,
which he things should be no difficulty at all.
No, I'm not decided on it. I don't see what the
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hence the ASP loophole: you can take a program licensed under the GPL,
pound it into this type of interface, and you no longer have to
distribute anything at all for people to use it. The GPL is dependent
on distribution in order for people to be able
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 20:34, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why the GPL is free
---
But then why is the forced distribution of source ok which the GPL
requires? Because this
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are freedoms that you get from having the source code other than
replacing the version you're interacting with. You can learn how
algorithms work. You can incorporate it into other software systems.
I could get freedoms by having the tax returns
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But they're legitimate interests that users of Free Software want. I
don't see why altering the application you actually run is the only
goal that's allowed for Free Software. These aren't side effects --
they're primary, important goals in themselves.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 06:57:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The benefits you can get from the Windows source code are _exactly_
the same in nature as those you obtain from the Google source code.
Not exactly. I can modify the source of the Windows source, compile it
and use the changes[1].
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Anthony Towns is quite right that it is illegitimate to argue this is
a genuine pain, so it must be non-free.
I think there's a difference between having people be *unable* to hack
on the software (in the case of the desert island, or the
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:25:42AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
There are clearly about six different ASP loopholes confusing this
discussion. :) I propose from now on that people stop saying the ASP
loophole as if there were only one. David Turner contends that the
real problem is
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:42:28AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 06:57:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The benefits you can get from the Windows source code are _exactly_
the same in nature as those you obtain from the Google source code.
Not exactly. I can modify the
On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 04:12, Anthony Towns wrote:
[Much good stuff snipped]
I think it would be really nice to be able to justify tests like:
(d) can you use it completely naively - without reading,
understanding or thinking about the license - without running
the
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:10:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Someone already answered the google question for you -- it saves
you the 20k on a Google Search Appliance for your intranet.
That's akin to someone releasing the source of a neat,
On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 04:27, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are freedoms that you get from having the source code other than
replacing the version you're interacting with. You can learn how
algorithms work. You can incorporate it into other
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 01:12 am, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:49:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The ASP loophole, it seems to me, is merely another technical means
for a dynamic link, and should be subject to exactly the same
requirements as for all other
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:02:23AM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
and you're starting to say that the GPL denies you the right to look
at http://www.microsoft.com with a free web browser, or http://www.fsf.org
with IE.
Not at all.
What's the difference? The distinction between a web
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, someone does this to a GPL library, which was intended by the author
to have source be available to anyone using it. However, now you're linking
against it without actually having been given a copy at all; just a reference
to some generic
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 04:27, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are freedoms that you get from having the source code other than
replacing the version you're interacting with. You can learn how
algorithms
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The main point to consider here is the intent of the person providing
the GPL client. Remember that the GPL says it is ALWAYS ok to create
non-free derivatives of GPL works, if you don't distribute them at all.
This means that, even if you regard a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Anthony Towns is quite right that it is illegitimate to argue this is
a genuine pain, so it must be non-free.
I think there's a difference between having people be *unable* to hack
on
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:48:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Or how about this: If you have $100 in your bank account, then you
must send it to the author of the program as soon as you have the
ability, otherwise, you can use the program at no cost.
That discriminates against people
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 04:34 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Right, so here's what I'll do. I'll create a non-free derivative of
GNU Foo, which adds a splendid text-manipulation function that many
people want. And I'll write a CGI so that people can type in text and
my web site will run
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 08:19:34PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
Furthermore, if you made enough modifications and/or innovations to prevent
being outcompeted by a free competitor derived from the same GPL sources you
used, then you have committed considerable capital resources. Once again,
So IIUC, Anthony Towns is especially exercised by the alleged
difficulty with the QPL's apparent forced publication requirement,
which he things should be no difficulty at all.
But as Henning has pointed out, the QPL doesn't *have* a forced
publication requirement. Thanks to Henning for
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:49:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
We have already said that, in the context of the GPL, static linking
and dynamic linking both make a single program, and anyone who
distributes that program, in parts or as a single whole, with the
intention of distributing
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:49:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
We have already said that, in the context of the GPL, static linking
and dynamic linking both make a single program, and anyone who
distributes that program, in parts or as a
[note: ASP stands for Application Service Provider, and an example ASP
is provided further down in this message]
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 15:49, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Why a Forced Publication Requirement is Not Free
The basic reason here
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why the GPL is free
---
But then why is the forced distribution of source ok which the GPL
requires? Because this actually augments the freedom of the recipient
of the code.
Doesn't this depend on which recipient you're
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 08:36:44PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
[note: ASP stands for Application Service Provider, and an example ASP
is provided further down in this message]
OK. It's ASP in the context of HTTP (probably due to the nearby
PHPNuke thread) that caused my confusion.
--
Glenn
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:10:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Someone already answered the google question for you -- it saves you the
20k on a Google Search Appliance for your intranet.
That's akin to someone releasing the source of a neat, self-contained
algorithm from an application. I
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 21:50, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:10:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Someone already answered the google question for you -- it saves you the
20k on a Google Search Appliance for your intranet.
That's akin to someone releasing the source of a
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:30:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
If this code fragment were then added to a GPL'd program, and
distributed, with the intention that people would run it and thus link
it with rmi.bar.com's non-free code, in order to produce a program
without source, then the
72 matches
Mail list logo
