If the program *has *a form that is preferred for modification and is not
distributed in that form, it is a GPL violation, but this only has meaning
if you can get a copyright holder to prosecute it.
You can enunciate why the program does not fit the Free Software ethos. But
it fits the letter of the Four Freedoms and the Open Source Definition. It
would be kind if you would make it clear you're talking about the Ethos
when you push this issue, to avoid further confusing people about what is a
compliant license and what is not.
Thanks
Bruce
On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Erik Christiansen <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 12.01.18 12:22, Don Wright wrote:
> > Antony Stone wrote:
> >
> > >So what do you classify it as?
> > >
> > >Proprietary? Closed source? Commercial?
> > >
> > >What label works best for you?
> >
> > Malware?
> >
> > (Admit you left the door open for that one and we'll move on.)
> >
> > Perhaps it's not really bad by intent, but like a few other well-known
> > companies, and in full compliance with Sturgeon's Law, perhaps they are
> > doing the best they can. A few projects just have better management.
>
> As it is difficult to diagnose the condition leading to imposition of
> systemd, it might be appropriate to just name the product eponymously:
>
> Pötteriware
>
> If that rhymes with pottery-ware, then most will be able to
> differentiate on the basis that pottery-ware generally doesn't fuse a
> houshold's saucers, cups, vases, and flower pots into a rigid monolith.
>
> Erik
>
> --
> (5) It is always possible to agglutinate multiple separate problems
> into a single complex interdependent solution. In most cases
> this is a bad idea.
>
> RFC-1925
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
