Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 12, 2008 1:49 AM, Reid Nichol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thus the combined work, THE WHOLE POINT OF WRITING IT, is under the GPL. That IS what you just said. Which is forcing me into a license for my project that I don't want. We require you to use, for your program that contains our code, a license that protects the essential freedom for all its users. That defends real freedom. Stallmanism cult wants you to believe in something that is true only in the GNU Republic. Uncopyrightable aggregations[1] aside for a moment, you, as a sole author of a compilation (this term includes collective works), do have all the rights in compilation work. That's one difference (among others) between compilations and derivative works. Your compilation copyright is totally independent from copyrights on constituent works. But in the GNU Republic, the copyr^Hleft act has created fascinatingly fuzzy regime for software (quanta mismatch and all that, see below). It's not about expression (as in literary works per Berne Convention which says that computer program works are to be protected as literary works) modulo the AFC test[2] (to filter out unprotectable elements) like in the rest of the world. Rather, as Eben The dotCommunist Manifesto Moglen has nicely put it (in slight disagreement with RMS): http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/bangalore-rms-transcript - Q10c: Lets say I have a program that uses free libraries, which are... Richard Stallman: Well, linking them together like that is clearly combining them. The rules, based on the existing GPL, are too complicated for me to try to recite them to you. All I can say is, yes, the GPL makes conditions in that case. Q10d: That means any such use is a violation of the GPL? Richard Stallman: Some kinds may be permitted. That's why I'm saying it depends on details, very much. But linking components together is certainly combining them. Eben Moglen: Richard, can I make a comment here? Here's the problem. The problem that you're facing in asking the question, and the problem that Richard is facing in trying to answer it. When you try to take two disciplines of thought that use different primitive quanta - different units of meaning - there's not going to be a congruent mapping between one vocabulary and the other - as there is no guarantee that there is a one-to-one match between words in Hindi and words in English. The problem is that the unit of meaning in copyright law is the work, whatever the work is. That's the unit in which copyright law speaks. So the author, or authors, of a work have certain exclusive rights, including the rights to control modification and distribution. GPL says, we give most of those rights to the user, in the work, rather than withholding them, as proprietary users do. What's the unit of a program? Not the work. Computer science has defined many quanta of meaning in computer program since I began decades ago. The subroutine, the function, the module, the object. Each of those is a unit of meaning in a language of computer activity, but it's not the work under copyright law. Between the the quantum: work, and the quantum: module, library, file, function, object, procedure, there is not a one-to-one mapping, and the consequence is that when we attempt to exert our intention in copyright law, we only speak in terms of the work. We must use the vocabulary of copyright. Since that doesn't map neatly to the vocabulary of computer programming, no matter what that vocabulary happens to be, given the dominant paradigm of program construction, there is guaranteed to be a zone of uncertainty. Richard Stallman: I disagree. I wouldn't say that you're wrong. What you're saying is right, but there's something even deeper to be said, which is that what you're saying is not a problem. It sounds like you're describing a problem, but in fact, criteria... because of the fact that in a program you can express the same thing in many different ways, and you can rewrite it to use many different ways to communicate, any kind of criteria drawn up in terms of the technical boundaries that exist in programs would be a bad criterion because it would be too easy to play games with it. If there were a criterion about files, well, it's easy to move something from one file to another. If the criteria were about subroutines, it's easy to split up a subroutine. You see what I mean? Any criteria formulated in terms of the technical entities of programming would be too easy to game around. Eben Moglen: As when, for example, people tried to draw a line between static linking and dynamic linking under GPL version two, and we had to keep telling people that whatever the boundary of the work is under copyright law, it doesn't depend upon whether resolution occurs at link time or run time. Right? Those kinds of technical decisions, whatever they are, don't map neatly into the language of
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Jan 8, 2008 8:06 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. That is kind of against buying software from developers, don't you think? You are quoting from selling.html. The page clearly says we are not ethically against buying software from developers. Yeah, yeah. When someone gives a conflicting message he or she can avoid accepting responsibility for the negative message if called on it. Sort of. Hey RMS, don't you know that according to the panel of judges led by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Easterbrook (Frank Hoover Easterbrook (born 1948) is Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He has been Chief Judge since November 2006, and has been a judge on the court since 1985. Easterbrook is noted for his use of economic analysis of law, his legalist approach to judicial interpretation, for his clear writing style, and for being one of the most prolific judges of his generation. Easterbrook is one of the most prolific and most cited appellate judges in America.): http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbrshofile=06-2454_008.pdf [GPL contributors can't charge -- no software commerce] Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision: neither the original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the software or allow any successor to charge. ? regards, alexander.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 8, 2008 8:07 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This may be *your* usual interpretation of the revised BSD license Eben Moglen says that it is nearly universal among lawyers. As this is a legal issue, I have confidence in him. Yeah, yeah. You have confidence in Eben Moglen[1]. But let's examine for example http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html Licenses are not contracts says self-proclaimed world's leading experts on copyright law as applied to software Eben Moglen about the GPL. Now, apart from governmental permits (not contracts indeed) licenses like driver licenses, fishing licenses from local municipalities, gun dealership, public lottery permits, etc. to do something regulated by government (may I just note that neither GNU.ORG nor FSF.OGR is a governmental entity) and in the context of intellectual property[2] licenses, consider (starting with United States Supreme Court): Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the circumstances; but the relation between the parties thereafter in respect of any suit brought must be held to be contractual, and not an unlawful invasion of the rights of the owner. De Forest Radio Tel. Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, (1927) Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by ordinary principles of state contract law.' McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (Fed. Cir. 1995) Normal rules of contract construction are generally applied in construing copyright agreements. Nimmer on Copyright sec. 10.08. Under Wisconsin law, contracts are to be construed as they are written. When the language is plain and unambiguous, a reviewing court must construe the contract as it stands. In construing the contract, terms are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning. (citations omitted). Kennedy v. Nat'l Juvenile Det. Ass'n, 187 F.3d 690, (7th Cir. 1999) Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. '' 101-1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the relevant state law to interpret them. Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F3d 749, (7th Cir. 2006) However, implicit in a nonexclusive license is the promise not to sue for copyright infringement. See In re CFLC, Inc., 89 F.3d 673, 677 (9th Cir. 1996), citing De Forest Radio Telephone Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, 242 (1927) (finding that a nonexclusive license is, in essence, a mere waiver of the right to sue the licensee for infringement); see also Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555, 558 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that the granting of a nonexclusive license may be oral or by conduct and a such a license creates a waiver of the right to sue in copyright, but not the right to sue for breach of contract). Jacobsen v. Katzer, No. 3:06-cv-01905, (N.D. Cal. 2007) BTW, the last one is about Artistic License being a contract (just like any other copyright license). Heck, and as for the GPL itself: http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf On behalf of the people JUDGMENT ... The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract... contractual relationship between the authors and Defendant ... incorporated into the contract by virtue of the preamble of the GPL ... Plaintiff, or the licensors from whom Plaintiff derives his right, have not violated any contractual obligations themselves ... Defendant, who violated contractual obligations http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf MySQL's counter-complaint asserting breach of GPL license contract (COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)) and asking for declaratory (court to declare GPL terminated) and injunctive (court to preliminary and permanently enjoin Progress/NuSphere from copying, modifying, sublicensing, or distributing the MySQL(TM) Program) relief (plus damages, of course). IBM's SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM (Breach of the GNU General Public License) against SCO... SCO accepted the terms of the GPL... IBM is entitled to a declaration that SCO's rights under the GPL terminated, an injunction prohibiting SCO from its continuing and threatened breaches of the GPL and an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial (Pretty much the same as MySQL's claim above), BTW. From IBM's memorandum: SCO's GPL violations entitle IBM to at least nominal damages on the Sixth Counterclaim for breach of the GPL. See Bair v. Axiom Design LLC 20 P.3d 388, 392 (Utah 2001) (explaining that it is well settled that nominal damages are recoverable upon breach of contract); Kronos, Inc. v. AVX Corp., 612 N.E.2d 289, 292 (N.Y. 1993) (Nominal damages are always available in breach of contract action.). Also worth noting (from IBM's brief regarding the GPL contract breach): the Court need not reach the choice of law issue because Utah law and New York law are in accord on the issues that
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Jan 9, 2008 1:20 AM, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] This man has no respect for programmers, clearly doesn't understand why money was invented and how a market can be a very reasonable way to let people earn money. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Market It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the software users in general, as a market. This is not to say we're against markets. :-) regards, alexander.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Jan 7, 2008 12:31 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since plants can be easily replicated, why are we buying food from farmers? I'm not against buying software from developers (as long as it is free software). See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html. With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. That is kind of against buying software from developers, don't you think? regards, alexander.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On 7 Jan 2008 07:58:04 -0800, Unix Fan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Modern technologies like Wireless cards are little complex computers, some time ago, vendors decided it would be easier to ship the firmware inside of the Proprietary Windows driver and upload it onto the card at initialization time. (Instead of storing it permanently on internal flash/ROM memory.) To RMS, binary-only firmware is unethical (and in the case of Linux such inclusion violates the GPL... man oh man, surprise surprise): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FreeSoftwareAnalysis/FSF - From: Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: License questions Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 13:45:49 -0500 * Sourceless firmware is currently allowed in Fedora as long as it is redistributable. Refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BinaryFirmware for more information on this. Is this considered to be allowed by FSF? The question is whether it qualifies as free software. Firmware is software, and non-free firmware is non-free software. (Which processor the software runs on is just a detail.) Since these programs are binary-only, they are clearly not free software. (They are also not open-source.) Their inclusion in Linux itself is a violation of the GPL, but the Linux developers don't seem inclined to enforce the GPL against that violation. At present, essentially all GNU/Linux distros include the non-free firmware, because it was too hard to remove. So we decided to overlook the issue for the time being, and not reject distros on this account. This applies to Fedora the same as to other distros. However, progress is being made on removing non-free firmware from Linux. As this becomes feasible, and after some more time goes by, we will no longer want to make an exception for this category of non-free software. - regards, alexander.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Jan 7, 2008 6:15 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain my freedom to BSD license my code. Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is straightforward. You put the revised BSD license on your file, you package it with the source of the GPL-covered library, and you release it all. The combination, as a whole, is under the GNU GPL, but anyone can use code from your file under the revised BSD license. This is lawful because the revised BSD license permits users to release the combination under the GPL. This may be *your* usual interpretation of the revised BSD license but there is nothing in the revised BSD license allowing relicensing under the GPL. Hint: See Leicester v. Warner Bros., 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1501, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8366 (C.D. Cal. 1998), aff'd, 232 F.3d 1212 (2d Cir. 2000). In Leicester, a real estate developer employed an artist to create sculptural elements for inclusion in the courtyard of a building under construction in Los Angeles. The artist granted the owner the exclusive right to make three-dimensional copies of the work, and a non-exclusive right to make two-dimensional or pictorial copies. The developer allowed a motion picture company to film the sculptural elements as part of a movie. The artist sued the motion picture company, claiming infringement, on the grounds that the developer did not have the right to sub-license his non-exclusive right to make two-dimensional or pictorial copies. During the course of the litigation, the developer was granted a sub-license by the building's architect, who the court found to be a co-owner with the artist of some of the elements. The court found that the architect could not grant a sub-license to the developer because a non-exclusive license could not be sub-licensed. ... 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8366. regards, alexander.
Re: Open Source Article Spawns Interesting Ethical Question
On Jan 6, 2008 11:46 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You shouldn't use them, because of the software, but also, because your cell phone is a tracking device, even when it is turned off, Stallman said. Interestingly, in the minutes before the talk began, Stallman padded up one aisle in his stocking feet talking into what looked like a mobile telephone. I don't carry a mobile phone, but I don't see anything wrong in borrowing one from someone to make a call. In the same sense, I would consider it wrong for me to have a machine with Windows on it, or to You must mean Losedows (I've noted your habit of labeling Win32 as Lose32... the motto must be: You can't WIN if you use LOSEdows), right? use one regularly, but I see nothing wrong in using someone else's Windows machine for a few minutes. Wow. Nice to know that you can sustain a few minutes of nonfreedom, irregularly. regards, alexander.
Re: Open Source Article Spawns Interesting Ethical Question
On Jan 4, 2008 11:41 PM, Paul de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I've been working in IT for well over 10 years now. I can promise you that, had I denounced non-free software, I would not have been able to pay for my food or my rent/mortgage for the past 10 years. http://technews.acm.org/archives.cfm?fo=2007-04-apr/apr-09-2007.html#306282 --- Cell phones also came under attack, for their ability to be used as a tracking device, even when it is turned off. In summing up a broader philosophy, Stallman suggested, Don't buy a house, a car, or have children. The problem is they're expensive and you have to spend all your time making money to pay for them. --- http://ia310134.us.archive.org/1/items/The_Basement_Interviews/Richard_Stallman_Interview.pdf --- RP: So how do you fund yourself today? RS: I get paid for some of my speeches. In addition, when I am travelling in a lot of places people don't let me pay for anything, so life is cheaper. This is sort of amusing and makes me a little bit like a medieval king. Medieval kings had to keep travelling all the time because if they stayed in one place they would burden the people there so much that the people would eventually get mad! RP: Is that an adequate way of funding yourself? RS: Loads of people invite me to visit them, and if I am there for a few days they are happy to do things like pay for my food, and they pay for me to go there, because otherwise I would go somewhere else instead. And some of them also pay a fee. --- regards, alexander.
Re: Open Source Article Spawns Interesting Ethical Question
In response to off-band inquiries... On Jan 5, 2008 4:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 4, 2008 11:41 PM, Paul de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I've been working in IT for well over 10 years now. I can promise you that, had I denounced non-free software, I would not have been able to pay for my food or my rent/mortgage for the past 10 years. http://technews.acm.org/archives.cfm?fo=2007-04-apr/apr-09-2007.html#306282 --- Cell phones also came under attack, for their ability to be used as a tracking device, even when it is turned off. In summing up a broader philosophy, Stallman suggested, Don't buy a house, a car, or have children. The problem is they're expensive and you have to spend all your time making money to pay for them. --- Original linuxinsider.com article seems to be gone but full copy is still available courtesy of chineselinuxuniversity.net. (I'm quoting it in full below for the sake of convenience to RMS -- all those remote wget burdens, y'know.) http://www.chineselinuxuniversity.net/news/3308.shtml --- ;6S-Dz=xHkVP9zLinux4sQ', D?G0NRCG5DW\W2aSC;'J} 6227, W\5c;wJ} 7840636 Google6(VFKQKw: 2008Dj1TB5HU PGFZAy UPF8PEO Linux4sQ' | PBNE | JuNDUB | 5gWSJiSkHm~ | WJT4U5c | V\1(:MTSV | DZ:K296! | HK2EVPPD | WTSIJ1?U Free Software Foundation's Richard Stallman: 'Live Cheaply' U*WT: linuxinsider.com 1;TD6A4NJ}: 68 SI yangyi SZ 2007-04-05 14:04:18 La9) Speaking at Lehigh University last week, Free Software Foundation Founder Richard Stallman urged his audience to make open source not just a way of computing, but a way of life. Using commercial proprietary software leaves users divided because we can't make copies to help our neighbors and helpless because we can't see the source code, Stallman said. Free WiFi Hotspot Locator from TechNewsWorld Wondering where to find the nearest publicly available WiFi Internet access? Our global directory of more than 100,000 locations in 26 countries is a terrific tool for mobile computer users. Richard Stallman doesn't own an MP3 player. He doesn't own a mobile telephone. In fact, this techno-visionary -- a founder of the Free Software Foundation -- doesn't use any of the usual computer programs many people use. He spent the better part of two hours last week, before a mostly supportive audience at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa., explaining exactly why he has made these choices, which he couched not in technical but in ethical terms, and why his foundation works to promote what's called free software -- software that can be legally copied, altered and exchanged. With his long, slightly unkempt, dark, shoulder-length hair and his rumpled demeanor, Stallman, 53, looked more a 1960s rock guitarist than a software guru. His minimalist attire, a creased, logo-free red knit shirt, khaki pants and stocking feet, emphasized the counterculture associations. He parked his shoes, side-by-side, next to the podium in Lehigh's Whitaker auditorium, where he addressed about 150 in a voice tinged with a slight New England accent. Free Software, Free Markets As the afternoon unfolded, the counterculture connections seemed more than appropriate as he spoke of his role in creating an alternative to a computing environment dominated by corporations and their operating systems and software, loaded with hidden features and restrictive limitations. However, there were other times when Stallman's words seemed to conflict with his image. He spoke approvingly about the merits of people making money on their efforts and suggested free software encouraged more of a free market than the restrictive aspects of the proprietary software world. Stallman is also one of the creators of the GNU/Linux operating system Forge ahead and stay on budget with simple to install HP server technology., which runs most computers and Internet servers not run by commercial giants Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) Free 30-Day Trial. Seamlessly Integrate UNIX Linux systems with Active Directory. Latest News about Microsoft Windows and Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) Latest News about Apple Macintosh Latest News about Macintosh. People choose computer software for reasons that have to do with convenience, reliability, ease of use and cost, he says, but he called those choices a fundamental mistake because they don't allow us to see what is important. The source code for such programs should be easily visible to all users so they can change, adjust or improve upon programs or operating systems they create, he says. With proprietary software, the guts of the programs are a well-guarded secret, and such tinkering is illegal. A Call for Change Using commercial proprietary software leaves users divided because we can't make copies to help our neighbors and helpless because we can't see the source code, Stallman says. Stallman urged his audience, mostly Lehigh
Re: Richard Stallman...
Hello mini-RMS, Happy New Year greetings from gnu.misc.discuss! :-) On Jan 5, 2008 6:53 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I'm not from the FSF. Yeah, yeah. You're a kind of Richard Bruce Dick Cheney of National Association for Free Software, aren't you? A kind of fsf er.. fsa.pt (National) guy. No? http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=pt_entrurl=http%3a%2f%2fansol.org%2ffilosofia Peace out. regards, alexander.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Jan 5, 2008 5:57 PM, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Could you please respond to all paragraphs that I wrote? I really want to understand... God pointed his finger at his anointed prophet Richard Stallman http://linux.ues.edu.sv/servidor/maracosas/bruno2d/richard-stallman.jpg and intoned Thou art the leader of all things programmed. Go forth and spread the word. And R.M.S. ventured forth and spake Let there be copyleft! And there was copyleft and the Lord saw that it was good. The Lord then commanded, Collect donations from your gullible worshipers and venture forth to all the countries of the world and sample the lavish food and wine whilst delivering the word. And Richard grew fat and happy during all his days. :-) regards, alexander.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Dec 14, 2007 9:49 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You *can't relicense* code under your choice without the author consent period! That BSD license gives permission for almost any kind of use, including distributing the code under other licenses. I don't think so. The recipient of BSDL'd material gets a copyright license from the original licensor -- without the middleman getting a chance to do anything at all regarding granting some or all of the copyright rights that middleman received as a licensee. The middleman may or may not grant rights to his modifications though. The only requirement is not to remove the BSD license statement itself. And that means what? Well, you might want to wget and check out http://opensourcelaw.biz/publications/papers/BScott_BSD_The_Dark_Horse_of_Open_Source_070112lowres.pdf What is the legal effect of being required to retain this list of conditions. Are they just there for show? Do they have some other effect? In determining this, a court will look to the objective meaning of the clause and, potentially, the objective intention of the original licensor. In this case, the actual subjective intention of the party granting the license (and what they thought the words meant) is irrelevant.8 What the court is looking to determine is what the reasonable person (ie an idealized and dispassionate citizen who is called on to assess the scope of the license) would make of the words.9 Consider first the warranty disclaimer. If there is a requirement to retain a copy of the warranty disclaimer in a redistribution, is a court likely to say the warranty disclaimer is intended to be effective or not? For example, could the disclaimer be retained but framed by a redistributor in such a way that the disclaimer had no legal force?10 It is likely that the reasonable person would read the license and think that the licensor intended that the warranty disclaimer was to be retained without qualification. A similar argument could be made about clause 5 (which prohibits endorsements). On this analysis, the warranty disclaimer travels with the distribution and the redistributor has no ability to qualify it. The question then becomes what about the other clauses? What about clause 2 which permits redistribution and use of the source form? If, in the case of the warranty disclaimer, the objective intention of the requirement to retain or reproduce the warranty disclaimer is that the warranty disclaimer cannot, by the manner of its retention, be limited in its application or scope. Why should the same reasoning not apply to the terms in the list of conditions? Moreover, if the disclaimer and endorsement prohibition are operative as conditions, what basis can there be for arguing that the other clauses are not? If the other license terms are operative, then the combined effect of clauses 2 and 3 is that redistribution of the source form must occur on the terms of the NBSDL. Another message raised the question of what relicensing means and whether that involves changes to the code. When I say relicensing I mean distributing the code with another license applied. That doesn't mean deleting the old license. The concept of relicensing... I don't think that relicensing is legally a well defined term. You must mean the concept of sublicensing, I suppose. (The act of sublicensing is what happens when a licensee becomes a licensor to some other party by granting some or all of the rights that they received as a licensee.) The problem is that nonexclusive copyright licenses are generally indivisible as a matter of law (this is referred to as settled law in every source you can find) unless the licensing contract states otherwise. This means that a nonexclusive license does not carry an implicit sublicense agreement. With the exception of the MIT License (which contains a sublicense clause), permissive licenses generally do not include a sublicense right and instead offer a direct grant of rights from the original licensor to any recipient of source code released by him or her under that license. Actually, according to the 9th Circuit, exclusive licensees are not transferrable or sublicenseable either unless otherwise stated. See Gardner v. Nike, a case which appears to have surprised a lot of lawyers at the time: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bclt/pubs/annrev/exmplrs/csum/gardnervcsum.pdf I also note that you seem to insist on tying the concept of relicensing to the concept of GPL compatibility: http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/barcelona-rms-transcript.en.html The idea is that there are some other Free Software licences which are compatible with the GPL meaning that if a program is released under one of those licences, that licence gives, effectively, permission to relicence under the GPL. There are two ways that can happen. Some licences explicitly say you can also use this program under the GNU GPL. In other cases, it's because the licence
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
On Jan 3, 2008 10:49 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The free software foundation shall not be called free software foundation.. it shall be called Stallmanist Foundation and the philosophies are to be outlined as Stallmanism.. not free software. If you want to campaign for a philosophical stand about software and trees, you are entitled to do so. I don't think we will change the name of the free software movement for you, though. Sorry. Uhmm. Care to share your perspective regarding the name in light of the following recollections from Michael Zeleny, RMS? http://google.com/group/rec.arts.books/msg/cf1768c0e213d438?dmode=source As a personal note, back in 1985, I was deceptively expelled from the Free Software Foundation, to which I gave its name, by the underhanded dealing of Richard Stallman, whose allies took exception to my argument that Free meant just what it said. [...] is most gratifying to see the open source movement finally outgrow the ideology of Frenetics, which was the name RMS had originally favored for his private charity. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/msg/a558fd18a4e90340?dmode=source Once upon a time, RMS wanted software to be as free as air. Based on this claim, I suggested that he name a repository for the same, Free Software Foundation. Had I known that free as air meant something else altogether, our misunderstanding would have been avoided. TIA. regards, alexander.
