> Quoting Andy Sy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > >> However, to address your point more directly, what I was saying is that > >> copyleft (typified by the GNU GPL) is _essential_ to some of the > >> aforementioned "cool tricks". > > > > You already mentioned this. I got the meaning. No need to repeat it > > ad infinitum. Read my first post for this thread carefully, the > > key phrase being "the GPL AS-IS is insufficient....". > > That is not entirely what you said. The exact phrase was:
Sigh... for someone who seems to take great pride in being anal(-retentive), you sure do an amazing hatchet job of ignoring or misreading other people's fine print when it proves you wrong. FOR THE LAST TIME, all I'm saying is that the GPL, *on its own*, has been found insufficient for protecting commercial interests. I can't imagine how anyone can keep missing that point unless they deliberately go out of their way to do so for the sole purpose of being difficult. > It's interesting to note how companies like Trolltech and MySQL find > that the GNU license as-is is clearly not viable for commercial > purposes and have resorted to dual licensing their offerings. > > That was (1) a factually sloppy hand wave, in that there are a number of > GNU licences, not just one, Duh. Of course I was referring to the GPL license 'coz that is what Qt and MySQL use!!! and btw... "factually sloppy hand wave" - what in blazes?!?? Please stop taking the English language in vain. >and (2) a non-sequitur, in that you've shown > no such thing: All you've shown is that Trolltech and MySQL AB > understand and use strategic licensing for a couple of products. Yada yada yada... what can I do if you just refuse to see my point. > Strategic licensing is one of my favourite software concepts. It's > always interesting to see proprietary software companies using copyleft > as part of their product strategies. I'm going to give a lecture on the > subject, later this year. > > > As a side note I am curious, what is RMS' stand on dual licensing? > > Why don't you look it up? Or is it more fun just hurling mud? > > If you expect me to spend time doing research for someone who > obviously values at cost (or less) what is done for him free of > charge, you're going to be very disappointed. > You're going to give a lecture on licensing and you aren't even aware of RMS' stand on dual licensing? Cheez... the chutzpah. > >>> ...is still a turn-off or too much of a risk to many companies who would > >>> rather work with an MPL- or BSD- style license. > >> > >> Amusingly enough, MPL _is_ a classic copyleft. Thanks for contradicting > >> yourself. > > > > Amusingly enough, you're the one who seems to be concluding > > that "copyleft" == "extreme viral". I made no such statement. > > I make no such conclusion. You are mistaken. And you are carefully > ignoring my point that you're pointing to a copyleft licence, one _very_ > close to the GNU GPL, and one to recommend to business. No you didn't??? You just said I contradicted myself for saying that GPL is extremely viral ostensibly because MPL happens to be "classic copyleft". I NEVER said copyleft was the reason GPL was viral. Dunno... perhaps you insist on having your own rules of logic and grammar different from the rest of the english-speaking world the same way that you can't decide whether to be British or American. > >> The name-calling is tiresome. But I guess it's easier to than dealing > >> with real issues. > > > > The only issue here is I'm sick of reading about RMS. > > Is your copy of procmail broken? Would you like me to ship you a fresh > copy? > > Otherwise, you would seem to be indulging in argumentum ad hominem as a > lazy man's way of avoiding having to deal with actual issues. > > Don't tell me you don't know better. You do. > > [Further tedious name-calling snipped] > > >> I guess you must live in some alternative universe, where Stallman did > >> _not_ urge the Ogg Vorbis project to move the Vorbis code from GPL to > >> BSD licensing. > > > > http://old.lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3 > > > > Wow... how atypical of him. > > Oh, so you mean you were speaking out of /dev/ass, had no friggin' > clue about the matter you were alleging, don't even blink an eye > about having been shown your assertion was _dead wrong_ -- and instead > react by reverting directly back to name-calling? > > I see. > [tedious harangue ignored. Completely. Barely even qualifies as flamebait. ;-D] > >>> Extremists are all about curtailing people's freedom to believe in > >>> something other than what they preach.... > >> > >> Please point to one programmer whom Stallman has prevented from > >> specifying his own choice of licensing. One example should suffice. > >> Please don't spare the gory details: If RMS held a gun to someone's > >> head, be sure to include all the juicy bits. > > > > Leave it to you to come up with a straw man-type argument. > > The subject is about software licensing advocacy and you're > > bringing up 'guns'. > > Excuse me, was it you or some _different_ "Andy Sy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])" > who spoke of Mr. Stallman "curtailing people's freedom to believe in > something other than what they [i.e., Stallman] preach"? I'm assuming > you must be talking about some major act of tyranny, involving some > serious means of coercion. Please... acquire some common sense. What I meant is that Stallman has, for the longest time, staunchly discouraged people from adopting O.S. licenses other than the GPL using language that is virtually categorical in its dismissal of their value (as is so obvious from the GNU site -unless he made an about face and changed what he wrote there as well- plus his arguments in other situations like in his debate with ESR). That Ogg Vorbis episode is tantamount to an admission that he was wrong but instead of saying so outright, he covers it up with some rationale (in a quasi-hypocritical manner, kind of like how you've been been presenting your arguments) about doing it for the "common good". > I have no idea if it involved Stallman > placing a gun to the unfortunate victim's head. It could be extortion. > It could be blackmail. It could be lead-pipe persuasion. > > I don't know. You tell _me_. Please elaborate with all the unpleasant > details of Stallman curtailing freedom of belief. I'm sure this will > be a _most_ interesting story. For someone who's supposed to be a grown-up, you sure do a great job, with your petty arguments, of dragging down the level of discourse to one more appropriate for 11-year olds. What's the matter, can't win on the merits of sensible, mature arguments anymore? > > > As a side note I am curious, what is RMS' stand on dual licensing? > > > > > >> Why don't you look it up? Or is it more fun just hurling mud? > > > > Translated as: "I don't know. Thus to cover up my ignorance, I have > > to resort to being snide." or "I DO know, but I'm such an adolescent > > prick so much so that instead of helping people out, I'll just use > > the opportunity instead to insult others". Grow up, man. Your style > > really turns people off. > > And it doesn't make any difference at all how much additional > name-calling you do. Yeah, apparently you lack the EQ to figure out why people react this way to you. _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
