On Tue, 13 May 2003, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
What happened to the license FAQ there was talk about a while ago?
you mean http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html ?
Yes, that's what I meant. Except the specific FAQ entry I am
missing is the one
On Tue, 13 May 2003, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
The GPL nuts have taken over the word free, just like certain
political views are using the words free and freedom to mean
the way we like it.
What happened to the license FAQ there was talk
Noel J. Bergman wrote, On 13/05/2003 22.24:
...
In 1992, when GNU was nearly complete, Linus Torvalds released
a free program that fit the last major gap.
You'd think that Stallman's ego wouldn't require him to marginalize
Torvald's work to boost his own.
And given what he thinks about the
--On Wednesday, May 14, 2003 8:13 AM +0200 Nicola Ken Barozzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And given what he thinks about the publicity cause in the Apache License,
that makes it incompatible with GNU, it's really amusing.
At an academic workshop I was at last weekend on open source, someone brought
David N. Welton wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I wonder is how many of those authors/copyright-holders have
actually read the GPL and understand what it really means. --
justin
Probably not the details, but on the other hand, the concept of the
GPL is clever, and
From: David N. Welton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 9:35 AM
Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I wonder is how many of those authors/copyright-holders have
actually read the GPL and understand what it really means. --
justin
Probably not the
Uhh, Licensing discussion breaks out on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Film at
Eleven.
Everything in this article is old news, rehashed many times to death in
public places like LKML or /. There is not a single new word in it. So
please let it rest.
It is IMHO freedom when every software author can choose
On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 22:24, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
What is certainly somewhat 'amusing' to us, in the same way Iraq's
minister of information's statements were 'amusing', aren't exactly
veiled in mystery.
Well now ... that's certainly a unique view of Richard Stallman. :-)
Comical
On Wed, 2003-05-14 at 09:35, David N. Welton wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I wonder is how many of those authors/copyright-holders have
actually read the GPL and understand what it really means. --
justin
Probably not the details, but on the other hand, the
Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From the other side of things, GPL'ed libraries have also been a
Free Software Business success story (for example: sleepycat, Qt).
SleepyCat?? http://www.sleepycat.com/docs/sleepycat/license.html
That's no GPL.
No, but the effect is similar:
*
Hi,
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Stephen McConnell wrote:
1. open-source is free and that is a problem for department managers
because this means they loose budget
Fair comment up to a point - but there are vendors of open source software
out there, so there are ways around this (although
David N. Welton wrote, On 14/05/2003 9.35:
Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I wonder is how many of those authors/copyright-holders have
actually read the GPL and understand what it really means. --
justin
Probably not the details, but on the other hand, the concept of the
GPL is
Andrew Savory wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Stephen McConnell wrote:
1. open-source is free and that is a problem for department managers
because this means they loose budget
Fair comment up to a point - but there are vendors of open source software
out there, so there are ways around
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
What I wonder is how many of those authors/copyright-holders have
actually read the GPL and understand what it really means. -- justin
Bingo. Herd mentality.
Not to diss the GPL itself for that reason. I would diss the GPL for
being hard for people to determine
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2003, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
I just mailed him that he shouldn't waste my time.. What a major idiot..
That is a bit rash I think. The guy makes a valid point; and one which
resonates unbelivably well with managers, policy makers, politicians and
No BSD code can compete with Proprietary code based on BSD code.
As it is BSD and then some. And therefore better. In reality this does not
playout that well (due to maintenance, integration and other biz./reality
costs) But once you have to explain that - you've lost the oneline
On Tue, 13 May 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
The GPL nuts have taken over the word free, just like certain
political views are using the words free and freedom to mean
the way we like it.
What happened to the license FAQ there was talk about a while ago?
- ask
--
http://www.freewebs.com/sepero/index.html
Of course LSD hurts OpenSource! People on LSD have impaired judgment and
are prone to flights of fancy, including shared utopian faux philosophies.
How could anyone argue that LSD doesn't hurt OpenSource?
Oh? *B*SD? Sorry! Nevermind.
---
On 13.05.2003 20:23:51 Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
The GPL nuts have taken over the word free, just like certain
political views are using the words free and freedom to mean
the way we like it.
How true.
What happened to the license FAQ there was talk about a while ago?
The following page
I just mailed him that he shouldn't waste my time..
What a major idiot..
Mvgr,
Martin
-Original Message-
From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 20:12
To: community@apache.org
Subject: How BSD hurts OpenSource
* Nicola Ken Barozzi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
http://www.freewebs.com/sepero/index.html
He's clueless and demonstrably wrong.
No OpenSource software, licensed under BSD, will EVER be able to compete
with it's proprietary equivalent.
Explain us, then.
The rest of the piece seems to be
Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
What happened to the license FAQ there was talk about a while ago?
you mean http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html ?
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
I don't suppose anyone caught Stallman's response in the 3/24 issue of
Business Week, to the Linux article published on 3/3?
He said the same thing to Leo Laporte last Fall. In the same interview, he
added that songs could not be owned because they are creative acts like
programs, althought
23 matches
Mail list logo
