If the program *has *a form that is preferred for modification and is not
distributed in that form, it is a GPL violation, but this only has meaning
if you can get a copyright holder to prosecute it.
You can enunciate why the program does not fit the Free Software ethos. But
it fits the letter of
On 12.01.18 12:22, Don Wright wrote:
> Antony Stone wrote:
>
> >So what do you classify it as?
> >
> >Proprietary? Closed source? Commercial?
> >
> >What label works best for you?
>
> Malware?
>
> (Admit you left the door open for that one and we'll move on.)
>
> Perhaps it's not really bad
On 14/01/18 14:09, Erik Christiansen wrote:
On 14.01.18 13:04, Antony Stone wrote:
On Sunday 14 January 2018 at 12:29:09, aitor_czr wrote:
But... what's ldd? Synaptic sends me to buildd. By the way, including
the backports in jessie, i can't install mini-buildd :
...
On 14.01.18 13:04, Antony Stone wrote:
> On Sunday 14 January 2018 at 12:29:09, aitor_czr wrote:
> > But... what's ldd? Synaptic sends me to buildd. By the way, including
> > the backports in jessie, i can't install mini-buildd :
...
> I only know ldd as:
>
> 1.
Hi Edward,
On 14/01/18 11:09, Edward Bartolo wrote:
On 12/01/2018, Steve Litt wrote:
I don't think the definitions of free software and open source
anticipated a form of obfuscation so powerful that a simple computer
program couldn't de-obfuscate it. Probably
Regarding a new category and the proposed term:
> Obfuscationware.
>
> New name for a new type of software that wasn't thought of a couple
> decades ago: Otherwise free software with the intent and effect to
> lessen our freedom to use our (other) software.
>
> I repeat: SystemD doesn't fit
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 18:47:18 +0100
Antony Stone wrote:
> On Friday 12 January 2018 at 18:23:19, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> > Just speaking for myself, because of its deliberate obfuscations
> > making integration extremely difficult, I don't consider SystemD to
>
On Friday 12 January 2018 at 23:28:14, Rick Moen wrote:
> I wrote:
>
> > Don't advance this argument that X isn't free software because its
>^
> > source code is too difficult for a third-party fork to adopt and
> > maintain in practice unless you're also
Quoting Steve Litt (sl...@troubleshooters.com):
> I don't think the definitions of free software and open source
> anticipated a form of obfuscation so powerful that a simple computer
> program couldn't de-obfuscate it.
Don't advance this argument that X isn't free software because its
source
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:23:19PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
[cut]
>
> Which comes around to the original question about free software: Is
> SystemD really free software?
>
> Obviously, by the FSF definition of free software and the current
> definition of open source, yes it is. By the letter
I think systemd plays by the rules as regards both Free and Open Source
software, where it falls short is when it comes to the Debian Manifesto
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/project-history/ap-manifesto.en.html
The Manifesto really foresees the situation that has been allowed to
occur
Antony Stone wrote:
>So what do you classify it as?
>
>Proprietary? Closed source? Commercial?
>
>What label works best for you?
Malware?
(Admit you left the door open for that one and we'll move on.)
Perhaps it's not really bad by intent, but like a few other well-known
companies, and in
On Friday 12 January 2018 at 18:23:19, Steve Litt wrote:
> Just speaking for myself, because of its deliberate obfuscations making
> integration extremely difficult, I don't consider SystemD to be free
> software.
So what do you classify it as?
Proprietary? Closed source? Commercial?
What
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:35:58 -0500
Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 07:57:54AM +0100, KatolaZ wrote:
> >
> > Technical motivations have always been too feeble to cause
> > revolutions. We are not here just because systemd is technically
> > flawed (as we
On 170426-08:40+0100, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:35:59PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Steve Litt
> > wrote:
> >
> > > the distinction he strongly made was that Open Source didn't prioritize
> > > freedom, but instead
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:35:59PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Steve Litt
> wrote:
>
> > the distinction he strongly made was that Open Source didn't prioritize
> > freedom, but instead prioritized convenience and value to business,
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
[cut]
>
> The remaining difference between Open Source and Free Software, and IMO the
> only real difference there ever has been, is how they are promoted and who
> they are promoted to. Richard believes in an *a priori *acceptance
dear Bruce,
first of all thanks for joining the discussion here, I feel like
saying in particular because I am a long time fan of your seminal work
for the free and open source communities (shall I write society) and
many other VUAs are and of all people I think you do deserve a proper
welcome. I
On 4/25/17 9:03 PM, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 08:27:16PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Free Software means just that: You don't have to pay anything to use it.
There's all kinds of stuff out there where object code is free to download
and use, but source is not available.
Quoting Steve Litt (sl...@troubleshooters.com):
> Anyway, I seem to remember Richard telling me in an email that as far as
> what you could and couldn't do with the respectively licenced code, they
> were essentially the same. If my memory is accurate, the distinction he
> strongly made was that
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 08:27:16PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Free Software means just that: You don't have to pay anything to use it.
> There's all kinds of stuff out there where object code is free to download
> and use, but source is not available. (And there are degrees of Free - such
>
> Free Software means just that: You don't have to pay anything to use it.
Bzzzt! Don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
On 4/25/17 7:36 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:10:28 -0700
Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com):
There isn't a licensing difference between Free Software, Open
Source, and DFSG-compliant.
Of course there are differences:
Free
On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:10:28 -0700
Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com):
>
> > There isn't a licensing difference between Free Software, Open
> > Source, and DFSG-compliant.
>
> FWIW, I concur, and regard all as a single effort with slightly
>
Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com):
> There isn't a licensing difference between Free Software, Open Source,
> and DFSG-compliant.
FWIW, I concur, and regard all as a single effort with slightly
different, overlapping marketing programs. (As you say, Richard doesn't
see it that way; I
25 matches
Mail list logo