Puuuuhhhhhlllleeeeeaaaassseeee stop all the license talk. your killing me. Get back to Plex. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Drew Northup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [plex86] GPL/LGPL and other licensing talk
> Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > > > > I can change the code to the GPL at any moment according to the LGPL. > > But that doesn't make sens if not almost all developers agree doing > > that. > > I am the current project maintainer, and I am saying that I don't want > you to. End of argument. If you want to go and make a GPL plex86 clone > then please go and do it--from scratch--and leave us here all alone. We > spent 6 months discussing what the license should be the first time > around, and we are just wasting our time here now. > > > > > > I don't see what licensing has to do with architectural defects. > > Architecture is a complete plan for success--and for what you may do > after achieving that success. I think that we made the right decision > the first time around--although I wasn't sure at first, I feel sure now. > > > > > > When a real architect puts together a plan, they > > > consider as many significant things as possible before > > > making the final blue print and certainly before > > > implementing. What a lot of OSS/free/libre hackers > > > do mistakenly is considering only the technical and > > > philisophical parameters. This is akin to designing > > > a sky-scraper without looking into building code. > > > Sounds good in class, sucks hairy ass in the > > > real world dude. > > > > > > If you want a reasonably complex program to succeed > > > and you think it's gonna need the support of some > > > of the big boys, you better start thinking about > > > what makes them happy too. This is where you can > > > take that GNU diatribe and flush it down the > > > toilet. > > This may have been a little strong for most people--but here Kevin has a > really important point. A computer program isn't just a program > anymore--it, like the works of a playwright, a novelist, or even a > politician must be considered in light of the bigger picture. If the > big picture includes the options of the programmer as well as the rights > of the user then all is well. > > > > This doesn't make sense and doesn't have any good arguments. I know at > > least one company with the GNU philosophy which succeed and that's > > cygnus. > > > I don't want to get into this too much--but one example does not make > the rule. Also, define success--if you mean corporate success (as Kevin > obviously does), then the GPL is a big thorn in the side to most > traditional corporate infrastructures; but if you mean idealogical > success then cyngus is indeed a good example. At this time it is good > to remember that idealogoy isn't the only tool in the war to create > better, more cosmopolitian, more egalitarian, and possibly more > utilitarian software, computer systems, and digital systems law. > Sometimes you must work within the system to change it. Sometimes you > don't need to. In any case Plex86 chose its group interpretation of the > solution of this problem a couple of years ago and decided to move on. > > > > I personally pinged RMS on a couple issues which > > > would have been simple to correct. But the guy > > > _insists_ on maintaining his personal philisophical > > > spewing agenda. When he could have simply corrected > > > problems at no real expense, and gained earlier > > > support. > > I'd prefer not to get into this too much--but in general I'd like to go > on the record agreeing to this basic sentiment. > > > > I don't see why the GPL is holding back commercial support. I think it's > > rather the other way around, because of the GPL companies are sure a > > competitor isn't going to make their code non-free, add extensions to it > > and sell it for a lot of money. The developers of a program know the > > program better than anybody, I don't think a company should fear a > > competitor is going take a lot of customers away. So I don't see why the > > GPL is holding back commercial support. I also don't see any issues, I > > hope you will tell me if you see some. > > > > > So back to your comment. GPL was _not_ acceptable > > > to previous relationships of mine, and LGPL was > > > the one people voted most for. > > > > But why isn't it acceptable _now_? It can be changed easily. > > You don't change the license to a project with the same nonchalance as > turing on a light-switch. We agreed on the license already--and you > implicitly agreed to it when you joined the project. End of agrument. > > > > > If you want something new, persue something new. If you > > > wanna borrow/share other code, persue a modular and common > > > interface. Otherwise don't bother. > > > > I totally agree. > > > > Most people think of licenses, but IMHO the GPL is the right license for > > almost anything. The LGPL is lesser because it doesn't ensure the users > > freedom as much as the GPL. I think the GPL promotes free software fine > > and a lot of people agree with that. I don't see in what way the GPL > > needs to be fixed. It's a good license and it does the thing for which > > it was created. > > > Who is more important? The users or the coders? The answer to this is > "none of the above." Remember this. No one person is more important > than another. If we are dedicated to making a free and open-source high > quality software as developers then that is what is important--to both > us and to the users. > > Also, is the GPL the best license for everything? I don't think so. > The GPL had a very narrow original purpose. I believe that it may still > be suited to that purpose--but that at the same time most of us don't > have that purpose in mind. We have decided on the LGPL. End of story. > > -- > |^^^ | | |^^| |^^^ Drew Northup, N1XIM |^^| | |^^^ \ / /^^\ /^^~ > |__ | | | | | |__| | |___ \/ |__| |__ > | | | | | | www.plex86.org | | | /\ | | | \ > ___| |__| |__| |___ web.syr.edu/~suoc/ | |___ |___ / \ \__/ \__/ >
