Looking for a discussion of the
advantages/disadvantages/repercussions/anything else relevant
of re-licensing my GPL'ed code www.forkosh.com/mimetex.html
under the LGPL instead. I've received several (a handful, not
a ton) of requests to do this, and have so far always just
replied, No. I
Encouraging contributions isn't usually a motivation to switch to LGPL. The
writers of proprietary software will generally keep the most useful
functionality in their application code (rather than in your library) and
will contribute as little as possible.
A permissive licence (such as the
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
In the last three years, Moglen and Ravicher together have received over
$1,000,000 in compensation from public charitable contributions as S.F.L.C.
officers.
Good for them! I hope they get more.
I know enough about causation to conclude that this will cause pockets
On Jul 19, 11:25 am, terminator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 18, 11:24 pm, Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Wolfgang Draxinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I know only the comments Linus Torvalds made about the
implications of using C++ to
* James Kanze:
C was never really a good general purpose language. It was
never used (nor even usable) in commercial software, for
example.
I'm not sure that statement is valid.
It would be very surprising, to say the least, if no or just a very few
commercial applications were written in
* Alf P. Steinbach:
* James Kanze:
C was never really a good general purpose language. It was
never used (nor even usable) in commercial software, for
example.
I'm not sure that statement is valid.
It would be very surprising, to say the least, if no or just a very few
commercial
James Kanze wrote, On 20/07/08 09:23:
On Jul 19, 11:25 am, terminator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
In short words today`s C++ cannot be considered as general
purpose as C used to be in good old days.
C was never really a good general purpose language. It was
never used (nor even usable)
James Kanze said:
snip
C was never really a good general purpose language. It was
never used (nor even usable) in commercial software, for
example.
So MS Windows is not commercial software? Interesting.
(Early versions of MS Windows were written almost entirely in C.)
--
Richard
On 20 Jul., 10:23, James Kanze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 19, 11:25 am, terminator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
C was never really a good general purpose language. It was
never used (nor even usable) in commercial software, for
example.
This is not correct. My guess would be that there is
[followups set to clc]
peter koch said:
snip
My guess would be that there is loads of C-based
software around. Speaking for myself, I have been developing
commercial software in C from the days before C++ became popular. The
software was a financial package which is still today very
rjack wrote:
The term “pro bono” is used to describe professional work undertaken
voluntarily and without payment as a public service.
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono says
A judge may occasionally determine that the loser should
compensate a winning pro bono counsel.
rjack wrote:
Each time the SFLC has filed a suit, GPL'd source code has appeared.
This correlation proves your hypothesis
Every day an SFLC suit was filed, little children died in the Sudan.
This correlation proves the SFLC is killing little children.
It is reasonable to believe that when
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Man oh man. Hyman Rosen managed to find out that SFLC wants scripts...
yet PRAYER FOR RELIEF doesn't mention scripts.
Of course not. The prayer for relief is simply asking the
defendant to stop illegally distributing the plaintiff's
software, and to compensate
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Release Date Filename
11/27/2007 actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr.tar.gz
Hmmm... looks like Actiontec is at least attempting to honor the
license. I haven't researched what's in the tarball, but at least it's
there.
So, again, why is SFLC suing Verizon?
Actiontec and
Hyman Rosen wrote:
rjack wrote:
Every time (with 100% correlation) when the S.F.L.C. files a
plaintiff's GPL case in the S.D.N.Y., this action causes the plaintiff
to voluntarily dismiss his pointless lawsuit without the court ever
reviewing the legal
status of the GPL or any of
Richard Heathfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
James Kanze said:
snip
C was never really a good general purpose language. It was
never used (nor even usable) in commercial software, for
example.
So MS Windows is not commercial software? Interesting.
Last time I looked, UNIX was not
Ciaran O'Riordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Encouraging contributions isn't usually a motivation to switch to LGPL. The
writers of proprietary software will generally keep the most useful
functionality in their application code (rather than in your library) and
will contribute as little as
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
The proof will be, once the case is over, whether the defendants
properly make available the sources of the GPLed software that they
are distributing. That most likely will be the case, because quoting
from the complaint:
Each time the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
rjack wrote:
Every time (with 100% correlation) when the S.F.L.C. files a
plaintiff's GPL case in the S.D.N.Y., this action causes the plaintiff
to voluntarily dismiss his pointless lawsuit without the court ever
reviewing the legal
status of the GPL or any of
* Hyman Rosen peremptorily fired off this memo:
rjack wrote:
Every time (with 100% correlation) when the S.F.L.C. files a plaintiff's
GPL case in the S.D.N.Y., this action causes the plaintiff to voluntarily
dismiss his pointless lawsuit without the court ever reviewing the legal
status
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:27:09 -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:
You have not provide an instance where after the SFLC ended a
Hyman,
Are you related to Moses Rosen?
I had a friend with that name who I believe had a son named Hyman and a
daughter named Hedy.
Just asking.
Shalom!
--
Moshe Goldfarb
rjack wrote:
U. What settlements. The imaginary ones?
The settlements it reaches in its cases.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
rjack wrote:
That's right. I'm gonna' let *you* provide the *verifiable evidence*
for *your* claims of settlements.
I'm not going to do that. It's enough for me to provide reasonable
inferences to counter the absurd claims that you and Terekhov make.
There's no chance that either of you will
Hyman Rosen wrote:
rjack wrote:
That's right. I'm gonna' let *you* provide the *verifiable evidence*
for *your* claims of settlements.
I'm not going to do that.
That's right neither you nor the S.F.L.C. have ever produced any verifiable
evidence for any legal claims and you never will.
* rjack peremptorily fired off this memo:
_ _
|_| |_|
| | /^^^\ | |
_| |_ (| o |) _| |_
_| | | | _(_---_)_ | | | |_
| | | | |' |_| |_| `| | | | |
| | / \ |
Linonut wrote:
* rjack peremptorily fired off this memo:
_ _ |_| |_| | | /^^^\
| | _| |_ (| o |) _| |_ _| | | | _(_---_)_ | | | |_ | |
| | |' |_| |_| `| | | | | | | / \ | | \
/ / /(. .)\
Alf P. Steinbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be very surprising, to say the least, if no or just a very few
commercial applications were written in C.
All of my company's major commercial applications are written
predominantly in C, including one that's completely object oriented
but
James Kanze [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto nel messaggio
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Funny, I use it for that, with no problem. (Well, I'm not sure
what you consider web programming, but Firefox is written mainly
in C++. But maybe you don't consider that web programming.)
I'm maybe wrong, but I
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The SFLC continues to file cases on behalf of their clients,
who can therefore be assumed to be satisfied with the service
they are receiving.
What's puzzling is that rjack appears to be right about one very
important thing,
On Jul 20, 10:50 am, Alf P. Steinbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* James Kanze:
C was never really a good general purpose language. It was
never used (nor even usable) in commercial software, for
example.
I'm not sure that statement is valid.
It would be very surprising, to say the
On Jul 20, 1:51 pm, Richard Heathfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Kanze said:
snip
C was never really a good general purpose language. It was
never used (nor even usable) in commercial software, for
example.
So MS Windows is not commercial software? Interesting.
Yes. Commercial
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
rjack wrote:
That's right. I'm gonna' let *you* provide the *verifiable evidence*
for *your* claims of settlements.
I'm not going to do that.
That's right neither you nor the S.F.L.C. have ever produced any
verifiable evidence for any
On 20 Jul., 21:59, James Kanze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 20, 10:50 am, Alf P. Steinbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* James Kanze:
C was never really a good general purpose language. It was
never used (nor even usable) in commercial software, for
example.
I'm not sure that
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:45:59 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The SFLC continues to file cases on behalf of their clients,
who can therefore be assumed to be satisfied with the service
they are receiving.
What's puzzling is that
Tim Smith wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The SFLC continues to file cases on behalf of their clients, who can
therefore be assumed to be satisfied with the service they are receiving.
What's puzzling is that rjack appears to be right about one very
[followups set to clc]
James Kanze said:
snip
You can't really do accounting in C, for example,
Really? How strange. I've done loads of accounting in C. (But then I've
always been good at doing the impossible.)
because it has neither a
built in decimal type (like Cobol), nor operator
Lorenzo Villari [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm maybe wrong, but I was under the impression that for Firefox they use
gtk+, which is written in C...
Gtk+ is indeed written in C, but it's object-oriented and has bindings
for a number of languages, including C++.
sherm--
--
My blog:
Sherman Pendley wrote:
Lorenzo Villari [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm maybe wrong, but I was under the impression that for
Firefox they use gtk+, which is written in C...
Gtk+ is indeed written in C, but it's object-oriented
And?!
Coding something in C doesn't mean you must abandon using
James Kanze wrote:
) Yes. Commercial can be used in several senses (and I'm not sure
) of the usual English usage here). There's a lot of software
) written in C that is commercial in the sense that it is sold
) (i.e. commercial as opposed to free software). What I was
) talking about, however,
39 matches
Mail list logo
