On May 14, 8:26 am, Paul Boddie <p...@boddie.org.uk> wrote:
> On 13 Mai, 22:10, Patrick Maupin <pmau...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to deal with your Ubuntu "high horse" situation first, you should
> take a look at the following for what people regard to be the best
> practices around GPL-licensed software distribution:
>
> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html
Before, you were busy pointing me at the GPL FAQ as authoritative.
When I show where the FAQ says that you should distribute source if
you give somebody a CD, you point me at a document which is obviously
designed for the Ciscos of the world.
> If you still think Ubuntu are violating the GPL or encouraging others
> to do so, feel free to contact their lawyers who I'm sure will be very
> interested to hear from you.
Did I *ever* say that Ubuntu was violating the GPL. No. Do I believe
that the practices of any binary Linux distribution that fits on a
single CD make it easy for the downloader/burner to violate the GPL.
Yes.
>
> > When the leader of your religion bandies terms like "freedom" and
> > "evil" about, what do you expect? Seriously?
>
> I thought you were "done". I guess you are: again, we have the usual
> courting of public outrage by labelling stuff you don't like as
> "religion" - presumably not the "right one", either - when it is no
> such thing.
Well, you conveniently ignore sections of your bible (for example, the
part of the FAQ where it says you should distribute source with
binary) and reach for more obscure scrolls whenever the real world
gets in the way of your fantasy. Even here, you don't bother to quote
what you wrote, which would show I am just responding to your outrage.
> > My primary agenda is to explain that RMS does, in fact, have an
> > agenda, and the GPL was designed as a tool in furtherance of that
> > agenda, and that while the agenda does have some arguably noble goals,
> > before using the GPL people should understand its consequences both
> > for good and bad, and make their own determination about whether it's
> > the right license for their project.
>
> Reading through your "translations" of what are effectively honest
> summaries.
There are multiple sides to every discussion, and everybody comes to
the table with biases. If you honestly think that you are not biased,
then you are deluding yourself. If you realize that you are biased,
then you will also come to realize that my translations are equally
honest.
> one gets the impression that you have quite a chip on your
> shoulder about the FSF and RMS.
I can take them or leave them until they and their followers start
spouting damaging nonsense. Many businesses were scared to death of
FOSS for many years, and I lay the blame squarely on RMS's shoulders.
You see only the good he has done; it is tempered by quite a bit of
bad.
> Referring to the GPL as a "commercial"
> licence and stating that it (as opposed to any other licence or even
> the word "copyright" followed by a name) is a threat to sue people,
> presumably appealing to the libertarian crowd with a judicious mention
> of "government" just to fan the flames of supposed injustice, really
> does triangulate where you are coming from. So, yes, we're now rather
> more aware of what your agenda is, I think.
I'm not the one who keeps spouting that it "gives" freedoms (or even
privileges) that copyright would have taken away. That's complete
bullshit. As I said, copyright *allows* the author to control various
aspects of his work ("take away freedoms" in GPL-speak), and all
licenses (including the GPL) explicitly state which aspects the author
plans to control. The only way the author can really exert control is
to sue or credibly threaten to sue. I can actually point to multiple
instances of GPL authors suing, and people like you crowing about how
great it is that the GPL stands up in court, but I don't actually
recall any suits about violations of the MIT or Apache licenses. So,
yes, I firmly believe that when somebody slaps a GPL license on their
software (and especially if they sign the copyrights over to the FSF)
they are trying to signal that they are willing to go to court to
protect their rights. This is no different than when Microsoft sues
an infringer, and is not an evil thing, but it is definitely something
to be aware of. The easiest way to not get tangled in that kind of
lawsuit is to just make sure that you never distribute any software
with a commercial-type license on it (including the GPL).
> And I don't think it improves any argument you may have by projecting
> notions of "morality" or "immorality" onto what I have written,
But you're arguing from a moral standpoint.
> especially when I have deliberately chosen to use other terms which
> avoid involving such notions
Yes, but you're making exactly the same arguments as others, just
changing the name.
> or by equating the copyleft licences
> with criminal enterprises ("pyramid scheme"),
Well, that may be a bit OTT. What I really should say is that the GPL
license has a "selfish gene." It tries really hard to propagate
itself, at the expense of the genes of other licenses.
> or by suggesting that I
> endorse criminal endeavours.
Hmmm, don't recall doing that. If I did, I certainly apologize.
> But if that's what you have left to say
> at this point, then I think you probably are "done".
Well, I thought I was before, but then the discussion about
downloading an ISO and burning it and giving it to a friend came up.
This may be technically allowable under the license, but nothing you
or anybody else has written has yet proved that to me.
Regards,
Pat
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
