On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 09:54:39PM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
You don't give me much time to reply.
Yes; disingenuous, calculated, misleading remarks do take longer to cook up
than the honest truth.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux |It tastes
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 02:32:21PM +0200, Martin Konold wrote:
Due to the fact that the GPL is according to RMS incompatible to anything
except itself
That is blatantly false, and I find it hard to believe RMS would have
uttered any such statement.
The MIT/X Consortium and 3-clause BSD
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 11:52:39AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
In real life, the vast majority of the people will contribute the patches
back
under both licenses.
In many cases, they don't really have much choice; changes on the scale of
bugfixes or small feature enhancements are easily
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 07:49:54PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
But if you add BSD code to someone else's GPL code, you could be in
trouble since the BSD license adds an additional requirement to
distribute an additional warranty and permission statement.
That is only true if:
1) You're
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Adam Heath wrote:
...
plugger is in contrib for a reason. ns-plugin-sdk can't be distributed. I
have a local deb of it, but I can't send it anywhere, as it has no copyright
at all, and netscape has been deaf to my inquiries.
...
plugger is under the GPL but linked with
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Paul Serice [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I guess it's a couple of things. First I feel betrayed. Given
all the comments I've received about Stallman's reasonably
well-publicized philosophy I suppose I have no one to blame but myself.
Nobody thinks
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Paul Serice wrote:
I guess I didn't say that too well. I feel betrayed because I thought
the GPL was about respecting the work of other people. If those people
only want their work to be used openly, then GPL is the license for them
(or so I thought). If you want your
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Nobody thinks (but you) that the GPL grants to people the right to
break into a computer. If you feel betrayed, it's by a
misunderstanding; at worst, it's an ambiguous sentence which you read
incorrectly
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 06:32:49AM -0500, Paul Serice
I'm forwarding this message to debian-legal [let's see if I can get the
right list, this time] because in a year when I look back and want to
find it I'm going to want to find it in the debian-legal archives.
[Apologies to the folks over on debian-devel *wince*.]
Thanks,
--
Raul
-
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 04:48:25AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 02:32:21PM +0200, Martin Konold wrote:
Due to the fact that the GPL is according to RMS incompatible to anything
except itself
That is blatantly false, and I find it hard to believe RMS would have
Raul Miller wrote:
And, since your entire rant seems to be based on the idea that laws
are being broken, I think it's up to you to come up with the
details.
I agree. I will try e-mailing him. The message is at the bottom.
I sent it a few seconds ago.
Paul Serice
Raul Miller writes:
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 06:32:49AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
I guess I didn't say that too well. I feel betrayed because I thought
the GPL was about respecting the work of other people. If those people
only want their work to be used openly, then GPL is the license for
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 04:05:32PM +, Jimmy O'Regan wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Paul Serice wrote:
) Jimmy O'Regan wrote:
)
) On Tue, 16 May 2000, Paul Serice wrote:
)
) No matter how broadly you read the fair use exception, it does not
) cover Stallman's actions. Fair use
On 18-May-00, 04:30 (CDT), Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Adam Heath wrote:
...
plugger is in contrib for a reason. ns-plugin-sdk can't be distributed. I
have a local deb of it, but I can't send it anywhere, as it has no copyright
at all, and netscape has
None of this makes a bit of difference. You are making a very obvious
error by failing to realize that different authors may elect to put their
works under GPL with different intent and different motivation. You are
reading too much into the mental process behind the author's action, while
what
Do not put too much emphasis on the fair use concept. It is
deliberately very vague, much like the concept of due process of law.
Exactly what it means in any particular situation can be very hard to pin
down without actually litigating the issue.
I would argue that there are extreme cases
I guess I didn't say that too well. I feel betrayed because I thought
the GPL was about respecting the work of other people.
The GPL is about establishing and defending the freedom to share and
change published software--about respecting community and cooperation.
The way to respect a
17 matches
Mail list logo
