Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:00:34 -0400, Rjack wrote: Don't like the GPLv3's provisions? Just issue an exception to its terms when convenient! I wanted to note that the FSF has just released an exception (the first?) to GPL3 under Section 7 (that allows additional permissions to negate other terms of the GPL3) that is quite interesting in this context. http://lwn.net/Articles/326854/rss If you write a new law and subsequently don't like it then just announce it doesn't *really* mean what says it means. ROFL. Developing nonfree software is not good for society, and we have no obligation to make it easier. We decided to permit this because forbidding it seemed likely to backfire, and because using small libraries to limit the use of GCC seemed like the tail wagging the dog. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html The GPLv3 has 5645 words when you include the How to apply... addendum. If that weren't confusing enough, you may now go out into the cyberworld and find what new exceptions the Masters of the Universe have added -- before they sue you in federal court in New York for violation of their 5645 word copyright contract that doesn't mean what they said it means. ROFL. Sincerely, Rjack :) Why should I care what the Federal court in New York decides when I live 3300 miles away across the Atlantic? There is also the point that the GPLv3 is not the be all and end all of the license. You can mix and match licenses depending on the source of the libraries and/or purpose. It looks to me that the exception to the GPLv3 license as it applies to the GNU GCC compiler allows for altered licensing in respect of proprietary modules used overall within an application. But then I am not a lawyer so take the above with a large pinch of salt! If I'm wrong I'm sure that someone will correct me! -- I'm always kind, polite and reasonable except when I'm not. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [!NEWS] The GNUtards Must Be Crazy
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:23:46 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Interesting article... http://www.ttis.cn/article/general-health-care/2009-03-11/11167.html -- The GNUtards Must Be Crazy at: 2009-03-11 22:28:25 snip ravings Another idiot who has read into the GPL what he wants to. It is perfectly clear to me. If you use GPL'd code within an application, even if you intend to charge for the application, then you inform the end user of this fact, and supply a copy of the code you have used and a copy of the GPL. This is not difficult to understand, even for Chris Stone, or you. -- I'm always kind, reasonable and polite... except when I'm not. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [!NEWS] The GNUtards Must Be Crazy
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:36:53 -0400, Rjack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: Doctor Smith wrote: Others use the programs for financial gain and contribute little All users who get a copy of a Linux distribution have the right to run, read, modify, and share the code that they receive, and thus the GPL has fulfilled its purpose. The purpose of the GPL is to (illegally) thrust socialism upon a democratic majority who desire a capitalist system. Damn, we've been found out! It is not the purpose of the GPL to demand contributions from those who do not want to contribute, nor is it the purpose of the GPL to prevent financial gain from GPLed code. Blowin' bullshit as usual Hyman? Try the truth just *once*. It'll feel really good. The purpose of the GPL is to destroy proprietary software. See Richard Stallman's speech at the 4th international GPLv3 conference where he states, I hope to see all proprietary software wiped out. That’s what I aim for. That would be a World in which our freedom is respected. http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/bangalore-rms-transcript Sincerely, Rjack :) -- GNU fans never lose, they just mve the goalposts. -- You're sincere? Are you a politician or other such wanker? -- I'm always kind, polite and reasonable except when I'm not. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Freedom. . . NOT
RonB wrote: Rjack wrote: So over the weekend I began to think about the GPL and my general disdain for it. For a license that is touted as 'free', it certainly doesn't feel that way. As a libertarian, I've often found myself baffled by the leftist stance that freedom has to be enforced with overwhelming regulation, and to me, the GPL is one of the best examples of such repression. Its viral nature is neither business nor government friendly, and its proliferation places a great strain on a developer's ability to quickly and freely incorporate quality software into highly complex and disparate systems. . . http://www.tbradford.org/2008/09/kinder-gentler-free-software-license.html They incorporate and share -- why should that be a viral nature. So what is it the writer is advocating? Legal theft? I'm not sure that we need another license for free software. How many do we have now? 36? Here's a link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_software_licences There's a case to be made for examining the ones we have now but do we need another one? What is it designed to replace exactly? -- If it looks like a Duck, walks like a Duck and quacks like a Duck, it's a Duck. Otherwise its a Hardon Quack! ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
