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 05:47:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
1. requiring that modified source be distributed as patches+original
(so, no public CVS, since cvs co gives fully-merged source).
We have a general consensus that this was a hoop we should not have
permitted.
No, we do
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
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:03:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Clause 6 still doesn't come into play if the derived application is
released under the QPL itself, in which case one has the
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 20:21, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here, I think Apache is closer to router software than to PHPNuke.
PHPNuke is distinguishable because it's not designed to do some standard
thing
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. Licenses are Free Software licenses iff
a. They infringe no fundamental rights
b. They have no excessively onerous terms
Fundamental rights is your term, not mine.
This also omits the crucial ordering that I mentioned. The point of
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2. Fundamental rights include the right to deny to users of the
software, access to source code for the software.
4. Fundamental rights include the right to deny to *non-users* of the
software, access to the source code for the software
5. No visitor
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.
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 17:58, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But what say you about Section 4, a section whose sole purpose is to
make the GPL more easily enforceable? This section couldn't even exist
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:47:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
1. requiring that modified source be distributed as patches+original
(so, no public CVS, since cvs co gives fully-merged source).
We have a general consensus that this was
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].
tb == Thomas Bushnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tb Yes, absolutely! That's what started this whole discussion,
tb IIRC.
Good. I was just trying to summarize one of the points that I care
most about (the RPSL and Helix being libre software).
bye,
andrea
--
Andrea Glorioso
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 Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:17:39PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
But free software was never about forcing people to contribute back.
No, but the GPL is about forcing people to pass the freedoms they have
onto their users.
Note that you do _not_ get to assume privacy is good and moral and a
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 10:26:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
The idea is that, before I make the software available in any way, I
should be able to decide who should get access and who should not.
And that list need not include the author.
Rather,
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:26:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
The idea is that, before I make the software available in any way,
I should be able to decide who should get access and who should
not. And that list need not include the author.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
When I say you're a user of router software, I'm not pushing the
definition of user any further than you are when you say I'm a user of
PHP-nuke or Apache.
Well, we disagree then. I admit that in some sense I'm using the
router on my local subnet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But you still haven't answered my question: *IF* it could be done (and
passed the other two tests I mentioned in my other message), would it
be free?
No. It wouldn't because freedom means, at its
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Still, I'll keep trying. Someone who just gets a web page
delivered is in no sense a user of the software that delivers it.
Why is the medium of delivery of the message the key factor?
It isn't. That's precisely why ASP can be a loophole.
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here's a start:
A user is one who causes requests or commands to be issued to an
application via an interface, which is the proximate cause of some
action on the part of that application.
Hrm, that may do it. I was thinking of a definition along 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Jeremy Hankins hasn't explained well enough for me why in that
future we would be unable to make the kinds of free software we have
now.
Ah, I wasn't aware of that. I'll see if I can flesh it out a bit for
you.
Imagine a world with
On Tuesday 11 March 2003 04:56 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 03:46:05PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
They could, of course, sell the software to someone
else, but the usual caveats about selling free software
(i.e. you can be easily undersold) apply. That might
be
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 06:44, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030311 00:46]:
Because the four freedoms do talk about freedom to use the software, but
don't say anthing about the freedom to *not* disclose source code under
certain conditions.
I may not talk about
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 Tue, 11 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
Actually, there was copying, but not distribution, as I recall.
The articles in question were circulated throughout the company so
they could be copied by employees. [Hence the interal distribution...]
Sure, but it would have had to be substancial
Jeremy Hankins said:
Imagine a world with omnipresent connectivity, and a lot of copylefted
software. Someone decides that they could make the browser into a
platform (remember Netscape the MS antitrust trial). So they take
commonly available Free software packages and stick them behind a
* Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030312 18:53]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
So they take
commonly available Free software packages and stick them behind a web
interface. Gcc, tetex, emacs, etc. They lock them down so that no
one can access the filesystem of the
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 15:47, Walter Landry wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:19, Anthony Towns wrote:
Well, they try to anyway. If there's no copying taking place, I
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
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
What happens twenty years from now, when Transmeta-style reconfiguring
processors are everywhere, and I'm not so much running emacs as I am
rebuilding my computer into a fixed machine which implements emacs?
This particular problem, if any, is one
Scripsit Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(please keep me in Cc: as I'm not in the list)
Livermore Public License (LPL), an Open Source License which is QPL-based.
It seems free to me, but I would like to gather some consensus before
putting any work into it. So, is
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.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
The main point to consider
I said:
I've heard of a version of outlook (I don't remember what it's called)
that you can access via IE. It's designed to look and act very much
like outlook would if you had it installed on your machine, and
evidently does a very good job.
This is evidently called OWA (Outlook Web
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:50:06PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the
Document), you grant to the recipient and all third parties that
receive copies indirectly through the recipient
Oops,
I unfortunately no longer have time to read and comment on the various
AGPL threads (well over 500 messages so far). If you do have
suggestions for how to improve the license text, or otherwise ensure
that users of software can get the source code even if they use the
software over a network,
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
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why is the user using an MUA if it's located on the local hard drive,
but not if it's being accessed over the web with IE?
They are in both cases. But only in the former case is any copying
going on. What we have here is an outright attempt to extend
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
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But I'm not yet clear what your argument for that is. On the face of
it, attaching it to use makes more sense, since who the possessor of a
copy is is really a technical detail that can be changed or made
unclear via technical means (e.g., ASP).
The
[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,
52 matches
Mail list logo
