On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:54:42 +0000, Lee wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:23, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +0000, Lee wrote in message > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd > > > aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by > > > people who want to ensure that their work remains free (as > > > in free beer) but also want to make sure that their work > > > isn't exploited by commercial organisations. Some people > > > also like to include non-violence conditions. > > > > ..these issues has been and is discussed thoroughly in the > > fsf.org and opensource.org and Groklaw.net and many other > > places, I still don't see how any other open or free source > > code license gives the author more control over his code, also > > for commercial or military use. > > > > ..and, those a/c authors who wants it both ways, are free to > > use more licenses, like Mysql AB with Mysql or Trolltech with > > Qt. > > You're thinking too narrowly perhaps;) Licences are not always > wanted by many people - they can have a nasty habit for biting > you on the back-side when you least expect it (not that I ever > actually find myself expecting to be bitten on the bum). .. ;o) FUD-meisters like to make that impression > If a work is created by someone there is no intrinsic need for a > licence to allow other people to benefit from the work (except > of course, where safety is likely to be an issue). I could make > a paper aeroplane and give it to you for you to fly - you won't > need a licence. All you will need is for me to give it to you. ..an unlimited license, ok. Who's paper you did fold? ;o) > But if I think that you will stick it up my sleeve and set fire > to it, I won't give it to you. ..here we move towards Contract-land. If you print your license on my paper plane, does my acceptance or not on it, have _any_ ramification on my receipt and use of that paper plane? Also, given my acceptance of your "license", I can circumvent it by dipping it in turpentine, stick it up your ass and light it up for such scientific purposes as recording your rotation speed, climb-out angle, and ceiling. ;o) > I can see why some people like that way of operating, even though > I'm personally happy with the GPL. > > > > Personally, while I'm happy with the protection that the GPL > > > gives me with regard to credit for the work and the lack of > > > control over the work once released under the license, I > > > can't > > > > ..you control your own work, and not anyone elses, under the > > GPL. > > I control what I'm doing and what I've done but I have no control > over what anyone else does with what I've released under the > GPL. ..precisely, because their changes to your code is _their_ work. > > > > > criticise the people who don't want to give up that control. > > > > > > Just for the record, I wouldn't have any problems about > > > linking to pay-ware either. No one is forcing anyone to buy > > > anything, so it's take it or leave it. > > > > ..not a problem with GPL payware, _maybe_ under other payware > > licenses, this depends on the license's "small print" > > language. > > > > > I think the GPL is great for many things but if applied to > > > everything exclusively it becomes a tool of force and people > > > can no longer do what they want. > > > > ..the only problem with the GPL in that regard is when you > > wanna deny other people the rights you yourself has been given > > by the original authors, "before you jumped in." Your own > > code is and remains your own, and you license it as you damned > > well pleases. Other peoples code can be thrown in legally > > too, _if_ they give you a license to do so, and wise people > > will tell you "Riiiiiiiiiiight, I'll consider it if you can > > convince RMS and Eben Moglen to get that into GPLv3." ;-) > > The problem I see with it is when people say that something > _should_ be licenced under the GPL, or whatever licence one > fancies. If someone decides to release it under an 'open' or > 'free' licence, then all well and good - everyone benefits - but > if you start saying that it _should_ be so licenced then the > person actually doing it has no choice and you've entered the > realm of compulsion. ..ah, but for example the BSD type licenses _allows_ bad people to skim off the good stuff _and_ change author credits _and_ hide it as closed source _and_ charge for it. ..with the GPL, everything is in the open, that's why I say "should GPL" and is happy to chew out etc anyone to make it happen. ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
