Please unsubscribe On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:00 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Send cypherpunks mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://cpunks.org/mailman/listinfo/cypherpunks > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cypherpunks digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] (grarpamp) > 2. Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] (Cathal (Phone)) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 04:26:15 -0500 > From: grarpamp <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] > Message-ID: > <CAD2Ti2_= > [email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Ted Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 11:33 +0000, Cathal Garvey wrote: > >> The GPL acknowledges this by forbidding suits within the scope of the > >> work (I think: GPL experts on-list?), preventing E3 from occurring. > >> Other licenses often take steps in this direction, but the > >> ultra-short > >> "friendly and permissive" licenses usually don't > > Probably because their model and vision is different, they're > not really out to modify the world beyond saying "here you > go, it's free", only out to modify the code, so they've little > interest in legal longtexts or lawyers. > > >> terse and legally unenforceable way that they might as well not be. > > > > The GPLv3+ contains this sort of patent protection > > Section 10, last paragraph, last part. Don't know if that has been tested > in court as other parts have been in the news. And all of paragraph 11, > which grants patents. > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html > > >> Freedom is not merely defined in law but in experience, and simply > >> removing explicit limitations on freedom (copyleft licenses) does not > >> mean that the total freedom in the world has increased. > > > > BSD advocates, I think, are not interested in total freedom in the > > world. This is a CONSEQUENCE or OUTCOME of a choice, not the choice > > itself. > > > boils down to consequentialist morals on the GPL side, and deontological > > or rule-based morals on the BSD side. > > Yes, depends on definition of freedom. Unfortunately GPL and BSD people > seem define that differently. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 10:40:37 +0000 > From: "Cathal (Phone)" <[email protected]> > To: grarpamp <[email protected]>, [email protected] > Subject: Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > I don't think it's unfortunate, I think it's complementary. GPL is > valuable for trailblazing and stamping.out new territory because it > prevents E3, BSD is valuable because it helps shitty tech companies migrate > to standards that aren't total snakeoil. Between the two, the world > improves. Obviously I think GPL is better and more important, but that > doesn't mean I disparage or undervalue other open work. > > On 8 January 2015 09:26:15 GMT+00:00, grarpamp <[email protected]> wrote: > >On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Ted Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 11:33 +0000, Cathal Garvey wrote: > >>> The GPL acknowledges this by forbidding suits within the scope of > >the > >>> work (I think: GPL experts on-list?), preventing E3 from occurring. > >>> Other licenses often take steps in this direction, but the > >>> ultra-short > >>> "friendly and permissive" licenses usually don't > > > >Probably because their model and vision is different, they're > >not really out to modify the world beyond saying "here you > >go, it's free", only out to modify the code, so they've little > >interest in legal longtexts or lawyers. > > > >>> terse and legally unenforceable way that they might as well not be. > >> > >> The GPLv3+ contains this sort of patent protection > > > >Section 10, last paragraph, last part. Don't know if that has been > >tested > >in court as other parts have been in the news. And all of paragraph 11, > >which grants patents. > > > >https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html > > > >>> Freedom is not merely defined in law but in experience, and simply > >>> removing explicit limitations on freedom (copyleft licenses) does > >not > >>> mean that the total freedom in the world has increased. > >> > >> BSD advocates, I think, are not interested in total freedom in the > >> world. This is a CONSEQUENCE or OUTCOME of a choice, not the choice > >> itself. > > > >> boils down to consequentialist morals on the GPL side, and > >deontological > >> or rule-based morals on the BSD side. > > > >Yes, depends on definition of freedom. Unfortunately GPL and BSD people > >seem define that differently. > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20150108/686d50be/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > cypherpunks mailing list > [email protected] > https://cpunks.org/mailman/listinfo/cypherpunks > > > ------------------------------ > > End of cypherpunks Digest, Vol 19, Issue 11 > ******************************************* >
