On Sun, 2008-08-03 at 12:54 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Having source available is not enough for Software to be Free. It
might come as a surprise to some, but it's not even enough for it to
be Open Source.
Perhaps you don't even realize that the word 'free'
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 03:31 -0400, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
Linus Torvalds advocates developers being able to choose their own
licensing.
etc. etc. etc.
Please don't wake the demon. This thread died a natural death over a
week ago, to universal relief.
poc
--
fedora-list mailing list
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I apologize to all Fedora users and contributors for my excess and for
the harm I caused, and I thank my colleagues who approached me with a
friendly tone and helped me see my error.
On the bright side, you've made the news:
http://www.linux.com/feature/142772
No,
Les - if you want to restart the whole thing, please do it somewhere else.
Alan
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
First of all, I'd like to apologize to the subscribers of this list
for my recent excesses.
I'm known to have a hard time resisting the impulse to participate in
mailing list debates about software freedom and related issues, but
most of the time I manage to keep it under control.
Furthermore, I
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 29, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, RSAREF couldn't have been modified. It had restricted
distribution and everyone had to get their own copy.
On Jul 29, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, RSAREF couldn't have been modified. It had restricted
distribution and everyone had to get their own copy.
On Jul 28, 2008, Ed Greshko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, goodieyet another subject to trash. Can't you people just
stick to one lousy thread?
Netiquette recommends that the subject be changed when the topic of
the conversation does. Knowledge of netiquette is probably the first
thing
On Jul 28, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What if the bad guys already made a great deal of money and then
they declare themselves bankrupt?
Then what? What does this have to do with the GPL?
They have already taken advantage of the free code available and
make their own
What if the bad guys already made a great deal of
money and then
they declare themselves bankrupt?
Then what? What does this have to do with the GPL?
That the GPL is very hard to enforce. In the end the bad guys just rip the
very authors that published their work using the GPL. The bad
On Jul 28, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who? Anyone who did something contrary to those terms.
And who did, in the presented scenario? One of the four must have,
because they did something that you claim to be impossible under the
GPL.
repost
John A. Hacker develops, from
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Who? Anyone who did something contrary to those terms.
And who did, in the presented scenario? One of the four must have,
because they did something that you claim to be impossible under the
GPL.
repost
John A. Hacker develops, from scratch, a program that contains
On Jul 28, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
John A. Hacker develops, from scratch, a program that contains two
source files: lib.c and main.c. lib.c was developed to be released as
a separate library, under the modified (3-clause) BSD license (so
these are
On Jul 29, 2008, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 28, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RSAREF didn't stop the program from being created in the first place,
or from being distributed under the GPL in source form.
Per the FSF, RIPEM was a derived work of gmp and
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 28, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RSAREF didn't stop the program from being created in the first place,
or from being distributed under the GPL in source form.
Per the FSF, RIPEM was a derived work of gmp and could not be
distributed execept
I'm changing the Subject: header because some people who are not
reading the thread seem to have inferred, from the unchanging subject,
that the original huge thread was all about a single topic.
Although this particular topic would probably be a better fit for
fedora-legal, I believe most of its
On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gordon Messmer wrote:
In the context of a legal interpretation of a distribution license
(copyright license), work as a whole does not mean each individual
part.
Of course it does, or proprietary parts could be included - or
linkages
I'm changing the Subject: header because some people who
are not
reading the thread seem to have inferred, from the
unchanging subject,
that the original huge thread was all about a single topic.
Although this particular topic would probably be a better
fit for
fedora-legal, I believe
Antonio Olivares wrote:
I have gotten more of an insight on this issue and I have to say that
although you have many good points, Les has very good points as well.
I have gotten some input regarding issues with GPL.
...
/* name withheld to protect the identity of this previous GPL author
*/
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 26, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gordon Messmer wrote:
In the context of a legal interpretation of a distribution license
(copyright license), work as a whole does not mean each individual
part.
Of course it does, or proprietary parts could be
Antonio Olivares wrote:
I know I will hear some comments, but these are some of the reasons why many developers try to avoid the GPL. Here's probably the strongest case against it.
The GPL is an universal receiver of software from other licenses but it
does not allow GPL code to move
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
If the FSF doesn't not believe that the work-as-a-whole clause
actually means the terms must cover the work as a whole,
It does. The terms are permissions, the conditions are requirements
for the exercise of the permissions.
GPL terms are not only permissions, they
On Jul 27, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
IOW, the whole is under the terms and conditions of the GPL. The
permissions (1-3, in GPLv2) apply to each and every part as a
consequence of this.
Not _just_ the permissions. The exact terms of the license must
Antonio Olivares wrote:
Here's an example of a case that the GPL has not helped the original
author
http://www.linux.com/feature/57131
The case is still pending :(, but pretty much the abusers or bad guys
can get away with a great deal. This is unfortunate to the original
authors despite
Oh, goodieyet another subject to trash. Can't you people just stick
to one lousy thread?
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Jul 27, 2008, Antonio Olivares [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the problems with the GPL is that people can violate it and
then when they see themselves corraled, they can say I will release
the code and be clear.
This is simply not true. When people violate the GPL, they lose their
One of the problems with the GPL is that people can
violate it and
then when they see themselves corraled, they can say I
will release
the code and be clear.
This is simply not true. When people violate the GPL, they
lose their
license to further modify or distribute the program.
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
John A. Hacker develops, from scratch, a program that contains two
source files: lib.c and main.c. [...] John A. publishes the
whole, named gnothing, under the GPLv2+, and never publishes lib.c
in any other way.
[...]
Evelyn D. Scent maintains
On Jul 28, 2008, Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You only have to agree to the GPL requirements if you need the
permissions for modification and distribution the GPL grants.
Who forfeited the opportunity to distribute gnothing under the GPL by
violating the license, then? Under your
29 matches
Mail list logo
