On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 07:34:36PM -0200, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote: > Em Sat, 22 Nov 2014 12:17:34 +0000 > David Mackay <davidj...@gmail.com> escreveu: > > > >If you are the copyright holder that can't possibly be a concern! > > >Just ignore the violations. Being the copyright holder, only you can > > >enforce the license. > > > > >So don't prosecute them --- it's virtually the same, and that's all. > > > > Failure to prosecute every and all violation of licence leads to the > > licence becoming nullified on the grounds that the copyright holder > > doesn't care enough to protect their rights. > > That may be true for non-trivial licenses like GPLv3, but that's > hardly the case for very permissive licenses (like X11's), as they are > almost virtually identical to the public domain.
And this is your defense of your argument that I could just use a copyleft (ie, nontrivial) license and not enforce it, rather than using a permissive license? You're trying to have it both ways, or forgetting what you're arguing for. Anyhow, *I* believe that a license shouldn't require something if it won't be enforced; a license is a moral document as well as legal. If I don't consider it *wrong* to distribute the software in a given way, my license should not call it wrong. That doesn't automatically work the same in negation; similarly, the principle that if I don't consider it wrong to use the software in a given way, the license should not forbid using it in that way does not mean that I should forbid any use of the software that I do consider wrong. > > On the topic of the Autotools: I do hope we will steer as far clear > > from autotools as possible. > > I'm sorry to hear it. > > > > with software projects abandoning autotools en-masse owing to its > > complicated nature and a plethora of technical faults, this would be > > a regression. > That's not so in the view of the GNU project and in the context of the > GNU operating system. Well, CDE isn't part of the GNU project or the GNU operating system. You're welcome to port it, if you wish; "GNU/Linux" support works fairly well. Outside GNU software, cmake is fairly popular. And outside the GNU operating system and its close relatives (which happens to be where you're promising *better* portability), autotools breaks frequently. Even having a six-year mismatch between autotools and a GNU/Linux distro, or using busybox instead of coreutils, will frequently cause breakage. The OpenBSD port maintainer has referred to problems with autotools being a major issue. A user wrote this, just upthread: | But honestly, coming from someone who has spent a good part of the | last decade doing porting to IRIX, HP-UX, OpenVMS, Tru64 UNIX, QNX, | and god knows what other shenanigans: try to avoid autotools. It's | a huge frickin mess that is virtually impossible to trace/debug/fix | if it goes nuts (and it goes nuts way too often). The evidence would seem to be pretty clear that autotools does *not* make it easier to port software to obscure platforms in net: while the code may be more portable, the build system is less so. Thanks for reading, Isaac Dunham ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ cdesktopenv-devel mailing list cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel
