Hi!
Sorry for the latish response.
On Friday 11 Dec 2009 14:38:50 Shai Berger wrote:
On Friday 11 December 2009, Shlomi Fish wrote:
On Friday 11 Dec 2009 14:01:11 Shai Berger wrote:
Shlomi,
Why do you bother those of us who are not subscribed to Linux-IL with
an argument for which you have received (what appears to be) a
satisfactory answer in the original forum --
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux...@cs.huji.ac.il/msg57007.html ?
1. It's more on-topic here.
Granted.
OK.
2. I didn't find the answer satisfactory - essentially Tzafrir said
everyone can interpret the GPL as he sees fits and there will be Chaos
across the land.
No, he said that earlier. What he said this time was that everyone can
interpret *any* license as they see fit. The intelligent reader may be
expected to infer the missing and be laughed out of court. Actually,
there's no need for that.
OK.
For the actual matter at stake, it is my (non-lawyer) opinion that their
interpretation is no more valid than an interpretation of the 3-clause BSD
license that says the copyright holder is owed money for use of the
program.
Thanks for the support.
One more point about your argument there: You present it as if it were an
attack on the {L,}GPL for invoking the undefined, vague notion of derived
work. But what you end up with -- just use a permissive license -- is an
attack on copyleft itself. That is you do not attack the instrument at
hand, but the intention in its use. That is fine, if you're upfront about
it.
Where do you see that I ended up with just use a permissive licence?
Naturally, I prefer to use the X11 Licence for my software, but I can accept
the fact that some people would prefer to use strong copyleft or weak copyleft
licences instead. However, I think their most common manifestations as the GPL
and the LGPL are too political, complicated, hard-to-understand, etc. that I
think they do a dis-service to the concept of copyleft. In my essay, I thought
that the Sleepy Cat Licence is a good substitute to the GPL, but Migo said the
wording there was disputable and had too little legal teeth for serious uses,
and I couldn't find any GPLv2/GPLv3-compatible licence that is weak copyleft.
Migo did point me to:
http://snk.tuxfamily.org/web/2007-05-02-copyleft-variation-of-mit-license.html
Which is a weak copyleft licence that aims to be simple, but I'm not sure if
it was accepted yet.
So it's an unresolved problem.
One thing contributing to the strength of Tzafrir's comments there is
that in three weeks, you never bothered to refute them. Instead, you
chose to simply repeat your claims to a different forum. Why?
See above.
The above answers why you repeated your claims to a different forum, not
why did you fail to refute the counter argument -- except, perhaps, that
part of that message somehow escaped your attention.
OK.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
Thanks (not!) for top-posting.
I stand corrected. I should have indeed removed the part of your message I
was not responding directly to. Thanks for fixing that for me.
- Shai.
___
Discussions mailing list
Discussions@hamakor.org.il
http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussions
--
-
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
Why I Love Perl - http://shlom.in/joy-of-perl
Bzr is slower than Subversion in combination with Sourceforge.
( By: http://dazjorz.com/ )
___
Discussions mailing list
Discussions@hamakor.org.il
http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussions