Hello Archie,
* Archie Elberling [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-24 23:02:09 +0100]:
Second this change would make the
license incompatible with the GPL (which should be obviated even if you
do not agree with the GPL).
If you do not agree with something, then what is the point in making effort
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As already said, please read
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html for the answer.
Resorting to argumentum ad internetum, eh?
That link is crap.
The whole argument is license your code GPL-compatible
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from cador.lan [10.0.0.100] with HTTP/1.1 (POST);
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 2:21 AM, Anselm R. Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This whole discussion about licenses supports my first reason
why I don't choose GPL: I don't understand it in any detail,
because it is too long and covers to many things which I can't
remember as a whole. And I doubt
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Szabolcs Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i deliberately used an alternative definition of freedom (and included
all the dictatorship), because it makes sense to me.
Well, I guess that sums it all up nicely. I think that at this point
further argument is obviously
* hiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-20 19:13:11 -0400]:
yes
lack of knowledge can mean lack of freedom (with my definition)
So you have you own definition?
[...]
That's our freedom (in your definition). Szabolcs and I can use terms in
another way than you, you hiro can curse on public
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* hiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-20 19:13:11 -0400]:
yes
lack of knowledge can mean lack of freedom (with my definition)
So you have you own definition?
[...]
That's our freedom (in your definition).
That's our freedom (in your definition). Szabolcs and I can use terms in
another way than you, you hiro can curse on public mailing lists, and I
can decide to stop discussing with people who swear and get personal.
This is not politics, it's the internet, boy. Though you could nee
some
Good morning.
Am Mon, 19 May 2008 19:24:32 -0400
schrieb hiro [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
it's so easy guys.
freedom is when you don't mind looking into LICENSE.
Ever heard of pipi langstrumpf?
She's not public domain. :P
Sincerely,
Christoph
This whole discussion about licenses supports my first reason
why I don't choose GPL: I don't understand it in any detail,
because it is too long and covers to many things which I can't
remember as a whole. And I doubt most developers who license
their stuff under the terms of the GPL actually
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Anselm R. Garbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This whole discussion about licenses supports my first reason
why I don't choose GPL: I don't understand it in any detail,
because it is too long and covers to many things which I can't
remember as a whole. And I doubt
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Szabolcs Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
most likely everyone would agree that public domain provides more
freedom than GPL, but whether GPL is free or not is just a
terminological question
The discussion wasn't about whether or not GPL provides freedom, the
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Sander van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Szabolcs Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
most likely everyone would agree that public domain provides more
freedom than GPL, but whether GPL is free or not is just a
terminological
She's not public domain. :P
SHE is public domain. And you can probably get all her stuff from bittorrent.
Some people here better give this a try. This is more benefit than
reading stupid LICENSEs
What do you think about the freedom to remove the freedom from the code?
You don't get it, do you? It's elementary for freedom in society to
cut others freedom.
But this what you're speaking about is not society. You can think
whatever you want, create whatever code you want. But this will never
On 5/20/08, hiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you think about the freedom to remove the freedom from the code?
cut any other's freedom. On the other hand everyone could use your
code, and noone would even notice. It does *no* harm to others.
sure it does
if i start selling dwm for money
Being pragmatic, I think it is better the MIT style license. e.g.:
somebody wants to take the tile algorithm from dwm for some
proprietary project (yes, there are projects where the code cannot be
shared), if dwm is GPL they will just copy it without telling to
anybody, to avoid further legal
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 4:10 AM, Szabolcs Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/20/08, Kurt H Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Freedom is an absence of restrictions. The GPL implements
no, freedom is a very broad concept
there are different possible interpretations (eg. freedom of society
and
* Sander van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-20 14:20:31 +0200]:
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Sylvain Bertrand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Sander van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The discussion wasn't about whether or not GPL provides freedom, the
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:17 PM, hiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*you* don't get it (I'm good at personnal attack too): this is a way
to lead on the path of understanding why the GPL.
And do you already know what comes after understanding on that path
you are talking about?
I hope you are
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you think a user who gets DWM in a binary on some device knows a)
that this is DWM and b) knows that DWM is licensed under MIT? So this
user does not have the freedom to use, study, share and improve the
On 5/20/08, Kurt H Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you think a user who gets DWM in a binary on some device knows a)
that this is DWM and b) knows that DWM is licensed under MIT? So this
user does not have
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How should someone know what a tiling window manager is, when he does
not know what a window manger is?
If he doesn't know what a tiling window manager is, it's unlikely he's
going to use, study, share and improve so
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 4:52 PM, hiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hu? There is another license as secure than the GPL to protect against
code closing?
You mix everything up. There is no need for protection of open code.
Well many disagree with you, many think there is such a need. Me first.
Hello Kurt,
* Kurt H Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-20 09:58:00 -0500]:
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How should someone know what a tiling window manager is, when he does
not know what a window manger is?
If he doesn't know what a tiling
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you think a user who gets DWM in a binary on some device knows a)
that this is DWM and b) knows that DWM is licensed under MIT? So this
user does not have the freedom to use, study, share and improve the
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you think a user who gets DWM in a binary on some device knows a)
that this is DWM and b) knows that DWM is licensed under MIT? So this
user does not have the freedom to use, study, share and improve the
On 5/20/08, Kurt H Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(eg. allowing to kill is more free by your definition (less
restrictions), but if we care about consequences then it's less free
(it may pose much more restrictions on the possibilities of an
individual))
This is a specious analogy. When you
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Szabolcs Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you missed my point
the analogy is to show that removing a restriction may cause more
restriction globally in some way (which also shows the flaw in your
interpretation of freedom)
i thougth this was trivial, but here is
Sander van Dijk wrote:
To reitterate:
MIT/BSD just make software free.
GPL on the other hand is not just trying to make software free, but
also to govern in what way the receiver can use it. Now this may or
may not be morally right, but that's a discussion all in itself. What
isn't a
* Sander van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-20 18:07:53 +0200]:
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you think a user who gets DWM in a binary on some device knows a)
that this is DWM and b) knows that DWM is licensed under MIT? So this
user
* Sander van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-20 18:23:43 +0200]:
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you think a user who gets DWM in a binary on some device knows a)
that this is DWM and b) knows that DWM is licensed under MIT? So this
user
On 5/20/08, Sylvain Bertrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 4:52 PM, hiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hu? There is another license as secure than the GPL to protect against
code closing?
You mix everything up. There is no need for protection of open code.
Well many
yes
lack of knowledge can mean lack of freedom (with my definition)
So you have you own definition? Fucking nice!
Ignorance != lack of freedom (which demonstrates, again, how some
people try to attribute an incorrect meaning to the word freedom).
the point is that ppl have no way to
On 5/20/08, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Sander van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-20 18:23:43 +0200]:
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Why do you think a user who gets DWM in a binary on some device knows a)
that this
Hi Sander,
just my personal point of view:
* Sander van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-19 19:48:51 +0200]:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Sylvain Bertrand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Freedom which does not defend itself *will* be abused again and again,
Define abuse? According to
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are people (like) you who say modified BSD/MIT licenses are more
free, because users/developers have the freedom to make the software
unfree. (More a freedom of the individual.)
No no, it's not just people
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Matthias Kirschner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had university seminars about the term freedom,
Your lack of clarity on relevant concepts is not grounds for an ethos.
Freedom is an absence of restrictions. The GPL implements
restrictions; therefore, it lessens
Many are very wrong. The BSD like licenses have more freedom than GPL
licenses... since you can wipe out freedom from the code.
What is a freedom which can destroy itself?
It's is *not* a comparison based on the amount of freedom of each
type of license. That's plain stupid.
People who are
it's so easy guys.
freedom is when you don't mind looking into LICENSE.
Ever heard of pipi langstrumpf?
40 matches
Mail list logo
