From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss-
bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
Should the FSF feel compelled to go sue GitHub? And should they be
entitled to any settlement they extort out of GitHub?
In my opinion, the answer to this
From: John Abreau [mailto:abre...@gmail.com]
Describe a bunch of things that the GPL
doesn't do, assert that the GPL *should* do those things,
Name anything I said that even remotely fits that description.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
On 01/09/2013 12:09 PM, Rich Pieri wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 11:57:37 -0500
Mark Woodward ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote:
That largely depends on your view of society as a whole. Totally
unrestrained freedom is not possible in populations greater than
1. Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr quipped The right
You've repeatedly said that GPL is less free. You've argued that the GPL
should do things that it doesn't do, such as
Should the FSF feel compelled to go sue GitHub?
if you distribute laptops or servers that have a mixture of pre-installed
GPL and non-GPL binaries, that is also a violation.
On 01/09/2013 07:39 PM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
From: Mark Woodward [mailto:ma...@mohawksoft.com]
The freedom to deny freedom is NOT a freedom. By combining the FREE
software with NON-FREE software you can create NON-FREE software. This
does not protect FREE software.
This is not a
Another silly claim. The FSF cannot sue Joe on behalf of the copyright
holder. The FSF can only sue if the copyright was assigned to the FSF.
The FSF would not be entitled to sue Joe Schmoe unless Joe Schmoe violated
the license on something for which the FSF held the copyright.
On Thu, Jan
From: j...@gapps.blu.org [mailto:j...@gapps.blu.org] On Behalf Of John
Abreau
You've repeatedly said that GPL is less free.
Uhmmm Yes, but ...
You've argued that the GPL
should do things that it doesn't do,
Disagree. See below.
Should the FSF feel compelled to go sue GitHub?
From: Mark Woodward [mailto:ma...@mohawksoft.com]
Think about what happened to Kerberos under the MIT license. You always
ignore this point in your replies and this is a fundamental point in the
debate.
Some people wrote some software and made it available for free. Some other
people ran
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu)
b...@nedharvey.com wrote:
From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss-
bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
Should the FSF feel compelled to go sue GitHub? And should they be
entitled to
From: John Abreau [mailto:abre...@gmail.com]
Another silly claim. The FSF cannot sue Joe on behalf of the copyright holder.
The FSF can only sue if the copyright was assigned to the FSF.
The FSF would not be entitled to sue Joe Schmoe unless Joe Schmoe violated
the license on something
From: Mark Woodward [mailto:ma...@mohawksoft.com]
What gives you the
moral or ethical right to create a non-free product with that free
software you got for free?
What gives me the right to use a free product, such as vi or emacs, to write
non-free software?
The answer is of course, the
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:15:15 +
Edward Ned Harvey (blu) b...@nedharvey.com wrote:
In my opinion, the answer to this question is No:
Unless the copyright holder assigns the FSF the right to sue on
behalf of them,
No third party has the right or privilege to pursue copyright
litigation. Cf.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu)
b...@nedharvey.com wrote:
From: John Abreau [mailto:abre...@gmail.com]
Another silly claim. The FSF cannot sue Joe on behalf of the copyright
holder.
The FSF can only sue if the copyright was assigned to the FSF.
The FSF would not be
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:24:46 -0500
Mark Woodward ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote:
There is no conflation, the two are very much related. Please explain
how rights are different than freedoms in a way that describing
freedoms as rights is improper. A freedom is typically a right.
A right is an
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Rich Pieri richard.pi...@gmail.com wrote:
A right is an idea defined by law or common consensus. Freedom is the
state of being without restriction or duress. Right and freedom are
related but they are not synonymous.
Everyone has the right to blather at each
From: Bill Bogstad [mailto:bogs...@pobox.com]
You also keep implying that there are substantial financial benefits
received by people/entities who attempt to enforce free software
licenses. I would request that you provide some evidence of this.
I'm not saying they didn't make some money
On 01/10/2013 09:41 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
From: John Abreau [mailto:abre...@gmail.com]
Another silly claim. The FSF cannot sue Joe on behalf of the copyright
holder.
The FSF can only sue if the copyright was assigned to the FSF.
The FSF would not be entitled to sue Joe Schmoe
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 08:47:41AM -0500, Mark Woodward wrote:
On 01/09/2013 07:39 PM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
This is not a freedom of denying freedom. It does not deny any
freedom - Any 3rd party recipient of the non-free software can
still obtain the free software.
Think about
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:52:42 -0600
Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org wrote:
I've pointed out several times in this thread that it's unlikely that
using GPL for Kerberos would have made any difference [snip]
It wouldn't, because Microsoft did in fact write their own proprietary
implementation
Under democracy, citizens are prohibited from seizing power by force and
imposing a military dictatorship on their fellow citizens. Under anarchy,
citizens are not so prohibited.
The equivalent CDDL-type argument would be that anarchy is more free
because you're not prohibited from taking away
From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss-
bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of John Abreau
Under democracy, citizens are prohibited from seizing power by force and
imposing a military dictatorship on their fellow citizens. Under anarchy,
citizens are not so
On 01/09/2013 07:13 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss-
bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of John Abreau
Under democracy, citizens are prohibited from seizing power by force and
imposing a military dictatorship on their
On 01/09/2013 11:43 AM, Rich Pieri wrote:
Freedom is the state of being without restrictions.
That largely depends on your view of society as a whole. Totally
unrestrained freedom is not possible in populations greater than 1.
Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr quipped The right to swing my fists
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 11:57:37 -0500
Mark Woodward ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote:
That largely depends on your view of society as a whole. Totally
unrestrained freedom is not possible in populations greater than
1. Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr quipped The right to swing my fists ends
where the other
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:29:40AM -0500, Mark Woodward wrote:
It strikes me as absurd to claim that a system that fails to protect
freedom is somehow more free.
There's an assumption here that is wrong. The job of a software
license is to protect the rights of the copyright holder while
You know - There's something that I've never seen anybody do, and I would
rather like to see.
Release your code under GPL, and MIT, and CDDL. Any recipient of this
software may choose any of the following licenses. Don't see a license you
want? Write to us at ___ and we'll consider
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 01:01:19 +
Edward Ned Harvey (blu) b...@nedharvey.com wrote:
Release your code under GPL, and MIT, and CDDL. Any recipient of
this software may choose any of the following licenses. Don't see a
license you want? Write to us at ___ and we'll consider releasing it
From: Derek Martin [mailto:inva...@pizzashack.org]
The job of a software
license is to protect the rights of the copyright holder while
granting privileges to their business associates.
Copyright is exactly as the name suggests - the right to copy. Why do we have
such a thing as
Should the FSF feel compelled to go sue GitHub? And should they be entitled to
any settlement they extort out of GitHub?
GitHub sells a virtual appliance, which is a single executable binary file,
compiled from a bunch of GPL based software including the Linux kernel and git,
and also
I'm going to download some GPL source code, and compile it into a binary. This
is just a serial sequence of bytes. I'm going to take that sequence of bytes,
and store it as a data structure inside my non-GPL binary, and distribute the
non-GPL binary. Clearly, I'm in violation of the terms of
That's a great series of arguments. Describe a bunch of things that the GPL
doesn't do, assert that the GPL *should* do those things, and use that
assertion to support an argument that GPL is less free.
This latest rant is decidedly less interesting than the recent Gnome 3
rant.
On Wed, Jan 9,
On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 16:30:01 +
Edward Ned Harvey (blu) b...@nedharvey.com wrote:
This means you can't build a monolithic linux kernel including zfs in
it. But you can, if you want to, build a module which the linux
kernel links to. That is - if it's possible to build a kernel module
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 10:36:36AM -0500, Mark Woodward wrote:
On 01/07/2013 10:15 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
Let's get this clear, it is not less restrictive in the long term
view.
Yes it is, but it depends on your perspective, i.e. whose rights
you're worried about being limited.
From time to time, we have had speakers on various OpenSource licensing
speak at the BLU. The GPL was born because developers were contributing
their stuff to the public domain, and some people were grabbing those
and copyrighting that code. The original GPL was also referred to as
copyleft. But,
I have a new software project, and don't know which license to use.
The first thing to point out is that the project is minor and few will
ever care about it. The consequences of choosing a different license
are trivial.
My decision was between Apache 2.0 and GPLv3. I had read that the
Apache
On 01/03/2013 04:02 PM, Doug wrote:
I have a new software project, and don't know which license to use.
The first thing to point out is that the project is minor and few will
ever care about it. The consequences of choosing a different license
are trivial.
My decision was between Apache 2.0
hi
On 1/3/13 16:02 , Doug wrote:
If you had the choice, which of those two licenses would you choose
and why?
well, you have to decide what do you want the license to do for you.
if your goals for the code are in anyway aligned with stallman's 4 freedoms:
My snarky take on some of the major choices:
GPL v2 or v3: You choose to use this license when you want to use your
software to make a political statement.
Sun CDDL: You choose to use this license when you want to flip the bird
at the FSF.
Mozilla MPL: You choose to use this license when you
Rich Pieri wrote:
The GPL binds software to itself. It is in this way that
GPL projects like the Linux kernel have taken from BSD without giving
anything back.
But that's precisely what BSD developers want!
If they valued keeping source code viewable and having the changes
contributed back
39 matches
Mail list logo
