dick wrote:
There are so many other documented examples of abuses...
Again, "freedom" is the wrong word. Your ability to disengage and revert to
agrarian asceticism is orthogonal to the perfidy of nonfree software providers.
You do understand that the Free Software move
On Wed, Thu, 04 Nov 2021 20:31:50 -0400, dick wrote:
> and Github's hosting to improve GNU Emacs.
"Improve" is really the wrong word.
> There are so many other documented examples of abuses...
Again, "freedom" is the wrong word. Your ability to disengage and revert to
agrarian asceticism is orthogonal to the perfidy of nonfree software providers.
On 2021-11-04 17:31, dick wrote:
Got it. Companies aren't upfront about their motives.
Got it. Companies maneuver to eliminate competitors, free or
otherwise.
Heaven forbid capitalist entities should resort to that kind of
unconscionable
gamesmanship. Dale Carnegie, you've been put on
On 2021-11-04 10:06, dick wrote:
There is nothing insidious with such a paint
And yet, free software rhetoric emphatically characterizes nonfree as
"causing
harm in a way that is gradual or not easily noticed," which is
Merriam-Webster's
definition of "insidious."
The paint in the example
On November 6, 2021 11:45:47 AM UTC, dick wrote:
>> There are so many other documented examples of abuses...
>
>Again, "freedom" is the wrong word. Your ability to disengage and
>revert to
>agrarian asceticism is orthogonal to the perfidy of nonfree software
>pr
On November 4, 2021 5:06:44 PM UTC, dick wrote:
>> There is nothing insidious with such a paint
>
>And yet, free software rhetoric emphatically characterizes nonfree as
>"causing
>harm in a way that is gradual or not easily noticed," which is
>Merriam-Webster's
>definition of "insidious."
I
dick wrote:
Got it. Companies aren't upfront about their motives.
Got it. Companies maneuver to eliminate competitors, free or otherwise.
Heaven forbid capitalist entities should resort to that kind of unconscionable
gamesmanship. Dale Carnegie, you've been put on notice. In the meantime,
Got it. Companies aren't upfront about their motives.
Got it. Companies maneuver to eliminate competitors, free or otherwise.
Heaven forbid capitalist entities should resort to that kind of unconscionable
gamesmanship. Dale Carnegie, you've been put on notice. In the meantime,
I'll continue
> There is nothing insidious with such a paint
And yet, free software rhetoric emphatically characterizes nonfree as "causing
harm in a way that is gradual or not easily noticed," which is Merriam-Webster's
definition of "insidious."
Your response continues a long, and truly comical, tradition
dick wrote:
Can nonfree refrain from failing to respect user's freedoms?
You present this as an unattributed quote. If this is intended to
represent my previous response, it is a dishonest paraphrase. As a
direct question, it is a tautology: nonfree software is "nonfree"
*because*
> There is nothing insidious with such a paint
And yet, free software rhetoric emphatically characterizes nonfree as
"causing
harm in a way that is gradual or not easily noticed," which is
Merriam-Webster's
definition of "insidious."
No, it doesn't. You do not qualify what is
There is nothing insidious with such a paint -- its just paint.
When talking about software ethics one talks about what chains are put
on the users from those who control the software, in the case of a
paint manufacturer it might be by using Paint Restriction Managment
that would prohibit
> Can nonfree refrain from failing to respect user's freedoms?
I sell magic paint with the insidious feature that if you try mixing it with
another color, it turns black. But otherwise the paint performs great.
Under most interpretations of consumer commonlaw, so long as I make it clear
before
"Jiyuu" is widely used as a translation of "free" but it is not an
exact equivalent. There are historic and cultural reasons behind
this. One cultural aspect that is often overlooked by foreigners is
that Japanese is written in kanji, which are semantic characters.
The "ji" means "self." This
^^^
The company themselves dress this up (pun intended) in some glibly
vague marketing spin about the connection between improving oneself
and donning some new rags:
https://www.gu-global.com/jp/ja/corp/company/
Quote (manual transcription from image):
YOUR FREEDOM
自分を新
> Interesting story.
Thank you.
> Does the current translation of www.gnu.org show anywhere
> inconsistencies in that context?
> https://www.gnu.org/home.ja.html
The current Japanese translations of GNU documents uses "jiyuu"
throughout. The changes were made when Mr. Yutaka Niibe (widely
Interesting story.
Does the current translation of .gnu.org show anywhere
inconsistencies in that context?
https://www.gnu.org/home.ja.html
Jean
* Akira Urushibata [2020-11-07 00:34]:
> In 1999 (if I recall correctly) Richard Stallman visited Japan to
> promote the GNU project and free
he
rest of the world.
Proponents of this change of terminology argued that "free" is often
mistaken for "free of charge." Richard Stallman did not approve this.
He ordered his supporters to stress that "the free of free software is
the free as in freedom."
We had a un
* John Darrington [2020-05-12 12:28]:
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 09:34:50AM -0700, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)
> wrote:
>
> > However, using proprietary tools also isn't inherently unethical.
> >
> > (Also, if you're using tools to produce proprietary software (which
> > free tools
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 09:34:50AM -0700, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote:
> However, using proprietary tools also isn't inherently unethical.
>
> (Also, if you're using tools to produce proprietary software (which
> free tools cheerfully allow), the debate of which tools it is ethical
> to
, the coming of gcc, or gcc-2, which were so technically
excellent.
And then we both commented that we had eventually reached the
conclusion
that the usefulness of gcc, or the linux kernel, or other great
products, had come mostly because of the freedom that comes with s/w,
rather than the fact
we had felt exhilerated by, for
> example, the coming of gcc, or gcc-2, which were so technically
> excellent.
>
> And then we both commented that we had eventually reached the conclusion
> that the usefulness of gcc, or the linux kernel, or other great
> products, had come mostly because of
technically
excellent.
And then we both commented that we had eventually reached the conclusion
that the usefulness of gcc, or the linux kernel, or other great
products, had come mostly because of the freedom that comes with s/w,
rather than the fact that at the moment it is the coolest s/w around
He gave one at Microsoft's campus not that long ago. I could be wrong but I
don't believe he gives talks very often.
’ is to impose
>> that last paragraph about ‘harassment’ on everyone, while all the software
>> freedom stuff is just a decoration that should not be taken seriously?
>
> sorry, this is plain nonsense.
I am glad to hear that. Yet the rest of your letter keeps convincing me, that
m
I began learning about/researching free software over the summer of 2019 and
got my libre computer in September. I've never had a chance to see an RMS
talk (I wasn't aware free software was even a thing), and since he has
resigned from the FSF I am wondering if he is still giving any? I
Dmitry Alexandrov <321...@gmail.com> skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> * GNU cares for computer user freedom beyond software
>
> Does the title reflect well what is under it? Among SaaS(S), nonconsently
> installed (java)scripts, DRM and surveillance, only surveill
Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> * GNU cares for computer user freedom beyond software
Does the title reflect well what is under it? Among SaaS(S), nonconsently
installed (java)scripts, DRM and surveillance, only surveillance issues go
beyond software.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Alfred M Szmidt a...@gnu.org writes:
[...]
Are there any e-book readers that only run free software?
I wonder, if there's /any/ mobile computer that doesn't rely on at
least a tiny bit of non-free software?
The Lemote laptops, and desktop computers don't use any non-free
software.
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 02:27:32PM +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
The Lemote laptops, and desktop computers don't use any non-free
software.
I'll add Lemote Yeeloong (I'm use it), fuuloong and Linloong don't use
any non-free hardware too!
Indeed. (Or at least the Wikipedia page
Alfred M Szmidt a...@gnu.org writes:
E-book readers are very popular now. It sometimes happens that you
want to read some stuff on your way to work. However, PDF is hard
to read on such devices because font is small even on big screens
and when you zoom in margins are lost. PDF is
On 06/07/2012 12:41 PM, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
I wonder, if there's /any/ mobile computer that doesn't rely on
at least a tiny bit of non-free software?
Yes, there is: http://dicks.home.xs4all.nl/avr/nikon/index.html
___
to mention an important criterion.
(And I've once designed an ATtiny13-based device, a polyphonic
music box, myself, BTW. That design has yet to see a proper
release, but it's intended to be free as in freedom.)
So, let me restate my question:
I wonder, if there's
E-book readers are very popular now. It sometimes happens that you
want to read some stuff on your way to work. However, PDF is hard
to read on such devices because font is small even on big screens
and when you zoom in margins are lost. PDF is hard to convert to
On 1/17/2012 9:09 AM, JohnF wrote:
That is, rather than just ranting about it, propose an
acceptable alternative.
Thank you for your concern, but in fact it is not necessary to propose
an alternative law when protesting a proposed law which is both harmful
and useless for its claimed
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/03/15/Joining-Google
The iPhone vision of the mobile Internet’s future omits
controversy, sex, and freedom, but includes strict limits
on who can know what and who can say what. It’s a sterile
Disney-fied walled garden surrounded
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
LOL!
Summary:
For those who have been reading/hearing Stallman for the past 10-plus
years as I have, this admission is shocking in the extreme. The GPL,
which is supposed to be the ultimate guarantor of software freedom, may
deliver the opposite
freedom, may
deliver the opposite. Because of its control-freak urges, it can stymie
competition, which is presumably why Stallman is now calling on the
European Commission to grant what his license couldn't: freedom.
LMAO!
A rather absurd diatribe apparently based on confusing fork
guarantor of software freedom, may deliver the opposite.
Because of its control-freak urges, it can stymie competition,
which is presumably why Stallman is now calling on the
European Commission to grant what his license couldn't:
freedom.
LMAO!
A rather absurd diatribe apparently based on confusing
In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Stallman told the European Commission that
the lack of a more flexible license for MySQL will present considerable
barriers to a new forked development path for MySQL
THis is nothing new. The FSF's recommendation has always been
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
THE LACK OF A MORE FLEXIBLE LICENSE FOR MYSQL WILL PRESENT CONSIDERABLE
BARRIERS TO A NEW FORKED DEVELOPMENT PATH FOR MYSQL.
Uh, you conveniently forgot to mention that this is about MySQL being
licensed GPLv2 _only_ (not as common, GPLv2 or later). Since GPLv2
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
THE LACK OF A MORE FLEXIBLE LICENSE FOR MYSQL WILL PRESENT CONSIDERABLE
BARRIERS TO A NEW FORKED DEVELOPMENT PATH FOR MYSQL.
Uh, you conveniently forgot to mention that this is about MySQL being
licensed GPLv2 _only_
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
THE LACK OF A MORE FLEXIBLE LICENSE FOR MYSQL WILL PRESENT CONSIDERABLE
BARRIERS TO A NEW FORKED DEVELOPMENT PATH FOR MYSQL.
Uh, you conveniently forgot to mention that this is about
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Nonsense. The affirmative act is accomplished in advance when the
copyright holder acts according to the recommendation:
Go to doctor, idiot dak.
One just can't be a party (licensor or licensee) to an intellectual
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
GPL is a license, not a contract.
Yeah.
LOL.
Heck, why are you, German GNUtian dak, still pretending to be in denial
regarding the judgments of the courts in Munich and Frankfurt about
contractual status of the GPL, stupid dak?
(Munich)
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
One just can't be a party (licensor or licensee) to an intellectual
property license under unknown/unspecified/future/later terms.
God damn, you are a stupid POS.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
[...]
It's real difficult to understand that plain language, eh?
Sheesh, these anti-freedom trolls are incredibly dishonest and stupid.
--
Question
David Kastrup wrote:
[... the GPL is not a contract ...]
Both courts unequivocally said that the GPL is a contract.
(Munich)
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_muenchen_gpl.pdf
http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf
(Frankfurt)
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... the GPL is not a contract ...]
Both courts unequivocally said that the GPL is a contract.
How comes you snip everything relevant from my reply before stomping
your feet again? As I already said: contract law applies since
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... the GPL is not a contract ...]
Both courts unequivocally said that the GPL is a contract.
How comes you snip everything relevant from my reply before stomping
your feet again? As I
David Kastrup wrote:
[... There are differences which I listed ...]
Go to doctor, with all the differences which you listed, dak.
BTW... Who's paying for your health care insurance, dak?
If you you're going to trigger freedom of speech now just like Alan,
please explain why.
regards
In article 87oco0rjli@lola.goethe.zz, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
wrote:
Dak, dak, dak. Stallman told the European Commission that
the lack of a more flexible license for MySQL will present considerable
barriers to a new forked development path for MySQL
In article hbmvug$2ik...@colin2.muc.de, Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de
wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Stallman told the European Commission that
the lack of a more flexible license for MySQL will present considerable
barriers to a new forked
blockquote
what=official Software Freedom Day and One Web Day announcement
main-issues=Our Right to Own a Computer, Net Neutrality
where-New-York-City-information=down the page some
more=James Vasile on Software Freedom Day in New York City:
http://hackervisions.org/?p=523
Software Freedom Day... what's happening in Cambridge Massachusetts?...
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Gary Nym?
-Miles
--
Freebooter, n. A conqueror in a small way of business, whose annexations lack
of the sanctifying merit of magnitude.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
of well-paying professional jobs in softwaremore or less
predicated on a large scale commercial industry will re-introduce the
economics of scarcity to the software culture.
[...]
So, the GPL is an attempt to restrict freedom and the economics of
software production suggest that a pure free
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... The FSF doesn't care about programmers ... ]
Right.
http://www.charvolant.org/~doug/gpl/gpl.pdf
(Why Not Use the GPL?)
A programmer complaining that the FSF doesn't care about
programmers. Ho hum. As a programmer myself, I find that
the biggest
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... The FSF doesn't care about programmers ... ]
Right.
http://www.charvolant.org/~doug/gpl/gpl.pdf
(Why Not Use the GPL?)
A programmer complaining that the FSF doesn't care about
programmers. Ho hum. As a
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... The FSF doesn't care about programmers ... ]
Right.
http://www.charvolant.org/~doug/gpl/gpl.pdf
(Why Not Use the GPL?)
A programmer complaining that the FSF doesn't care about
programmers. Ho hum. As
David Kastrup wrote:
Well, but then you are wearing your user hat with respect to the
library, not your programmer hat...
My use of the libraries consists of my writing programs
that work correctly, so it's a meaningless distinction.
___
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
/ Rjack on Tuesday 16 September 2008 22:02 : \
_ _
|R| |R|
|J| /^^^\ |J|
_|a|_ (| o |) _|a|_
_| |c| | _(_---_)_ | |c| |_
| | |k| |' |
RonB wrote:
Rjack wrote:
So over the weekend I began to think about the GPL and my general
disdain for it. For a license that is touted as 'free', it certainly
doesn't feel that way. As a libertarian, I've often found myself baffled
by the leftist stance that freedom has to be enforced
RonB wrote:
Rjack wrote:
So over the weekend I began to think about the GPL and my general
disdain for it. For a license that is touted as 'free', it certainly
doesn't feel that way. As a libertarian, I've often found myself baffled
by the leftist stance that freedom has to be enforced
Rjack wrote:
Forced sharing through copyright misuse is illegal theft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors
the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 09:31:54AM -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Forced sharing through copyright misuse is illegal theft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors
Rjack wrote:
...For a license that is touted as 'free', it certainly
doesn't feel that way...
http://www.tbradford.org/2008/09/kinder-gentler-free-software-license.html
That is because the author misunderstands the purpose of the
license. It is not about freedom for programmers
On 2008-09-16, Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So over the weekend I began to think about the GPL and my general
disdain for it. For a license that is touted as 'free', it certainly
doesn't feel that way. As a libertarian, I've often found myself baffled
by the leftist stance that freedom
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
The lawyer representing Skype still continued to argue for a bit into
that direction, which resulted one of the judges making up an
interesting analogy of something like: If a publisher wants to
publish
a book of an author
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Here's a bit more sensible judge
Rui's judge was sitting on a case. Your judge is commenting
from the peanut gallery. Guess which one carries more weight.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
http://laforge.gnumonks.org/weblog/
LOL!
http://laforge.gnumonks.org/weblog/linux/gpl-violations/index.html
--
Wed, 13 Aug 2008
gpl-violations.org report in Financial Times Deutschland
The German business newspaper Financial Times Deutschland
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The funny thing is that his proposed license is not a license (since it
-
The GPL is not a tool for freedom, it is a tool of control, and I argue
that its overall effect on the art of software development as a whole
has been more destructive than it has been
7 wrote:
Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Rjack
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:
So
So over the weekend I began to think about the GPL and my general
love for it. For a license that is touted as 'free', it certainly
does feel that way.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The GPL is not a tool for freedom, it is a tool of control, and I argue
that its overall effect on the art of software development as a whole
has been more destructive than it has been beneficial.
Even if that were true, that's fine - it is not the goal
of the FSF
Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Rjack
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:
So
So over the weekend I began to think about the GPL and my general
love for it. For a license that is touted as 'free', it certainly
does feel that way. As a
Rjack wrote:
So over the weekend I began to think about the GPL and my general
disdain for it. For a license that is touted as 'free', it certainly
doesn't feel that way. As a libertarian, I've often found myself baffled
by the leftist stance that freedom has to be enforced
Hi.
The price of a highly open/freedom hardware platform using a CPU whose
design is released under GPL: a mamoth $14,000! Holy crap:
http://www.sun.com/servers/coolthreads/t5120/
... most open platform...
Does this mean what I think it does, if one is darn serious about this
freedom thing
Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there any particular reason for all that FUD here, rather than in a
group where it would be on topic?
Sorry about all that FUD. So, would it be okay for me to announce Docment
Freedom Day here?
So that you can evaluate it and give me a yes or no answer
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ciaran O'Riordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So that you can evaluate it and give me a yes or no answer, I suppose I
should point you to the website:
Document Freedom Day!
http://documentfreedom.org/
Did I
blockquote
what=official Software Freedom Law Center announcement
where=Columbia Law School on the Island of the Manahattoes
edits=removed some blurbs for other things
recommendation=see original at
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/summit/2007;
note=registration
blockquote
what=official NYU Free Culture Club notice
from=http://www.freeculturenyu.org/2007/01/03/january-19th-2007-5pm-cory-doctorow;
edits=minor, so looks better in raw text
January 19th 2007 @ 5pm : Cory Doctorow
January 3, 2007 by Fred
photo by Bart Nagel
On January 19th at 5pm
tools in the free software world is not
acceptable. Novell, as a participant in numerous debates, discussions
and conferences on the topic knew this to be the case. We call upon
Novell to work with the Software Freedom Law Center to undo the patent
agreement and acknowledge its obligations
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/node/1851
--
What we can do, those who believe in freedom, those who use GNU/Linux,
or those who everywhere who believe in free markets and reject gangsters
and thugs and the destruction such people do to society? First and
foremost we must stand together
Here's just one example.
By: cryptareopagite
--
Novell the Enemy and OpenXML
For those who missed it (hah!), Novell have embraced Microsoft, blown
their rights to distribute Linux under the GPL, and announced they're
going to help Microsoft try to kill OpenOffice.
I just posted
the campaign, spoken out for Internet
freedom and put Congress and the phone companies on notice.
This grassroots movement barely existed at the beginning of 2006. Now we're
on the verge of toppling one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington.
The reason for our success? Organized
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Tue, 23 May 2006 22:53:49 +0200:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alan Mackenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Karen Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 22 May 2006 16:49:50 -0700:
What is wrong with this? Commands like make have
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If adding a useful feature breaks some standard, break the standard,
standards are not laws that have to be followed unconditionally.
Yes, I know you're a troll, but today I'm quite bored so this is
your food for the weekend.
You've fallen for
Yes, I know you're a troll, but today I'm quite bored so this is
your food for the weekend.
You've fallen for him, by the way.
I wouldn't say that I have fallen, more like I'm laughing to hard to
be able to get up...
He has not shown that make breaks any standard. Yes, it behaves
Karen Hill wrote:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Care to quote line and verse of POSIX? [...]
WRONG! You must follow the standard to a tee if you want to be
compliant. Otherwise you are extending, just like Microsoft does.
There is nothing wrong with extending, provided that you don't
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Tue, 23 May 2006 22:53:49
+0200:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alan Mackenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Karen Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 22 May 2006 16:49:50 -0700:
What is wrong
Sorry folks, forgot one thing.
http://www.fsf.org/photos/rms-sign.jpg
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Tue, 23 May 2006 22:53:49
+0200:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alan Mackenzie [EMAIL
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 23 May 2006 22:22:09 GMT:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alan Mackenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 23 May 2006 19:14:34 GMT:
GNU make has many bugs that prevent GNU make from being POSIX compliant.
OK.
Some
Karen Hill wrote:
Hello.
I have been thinking about all the problems the GPL causes. My
solution is a new license called the Freedom License. Here it is:
Ahh the smell of a troll!!! You just know it will be a steaming pile of crap
when it starts
What are the problems with the GPL and how
idea of
relicensing by someone other than the original author is complete
rubbish.
Hi James,
Read the clauses. It says if the author of the work OWNS the copyright
it shall be released under the GPL and Freedom License.
As for being utter rubbish, look for this license to make a slash
Karen Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 22 May 2006 16:49:50 -0700:
Hello.
Hi from Munich!
I have been thinking about all the problems the GPL causes. My
solution is a new license called the Freedom License. Here it is:
Hey, I know you're trolling, but heck! After Alexander Terekhov
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alan Mackenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Karen Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 22 May 2006 16:49:50 -0700:
What is wrong with this? Commands like make have evolved considerably
since 1972. However, inside the GNU make info page you can read this:
GNU `make'
I have been thinking about all the problems the GPL causes. My
solution is a new license called the Freedom License. Here it
is:
Hey, I know you're trolling, but heck! After Alexander Terekhov
for month after month, a change is quite invigorating. It's a poor
newsgroup
GNU `make' conforms to section 6.2 of `IEEE Standard
1003.2-1992' (POSIX.2).
Do you believe all false claims?
Got a test case?
GNU make has many bugs that prevent GNU make from being POSIX
compliant.
Care to show us them?
Some of the bugs are related to the
In comp.unix.solaris Karen Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello.
I have been thinking about all the problems the GPL causes. My
solution is a new license called the Freedom License. Here it is:
THE FREEDOM TO TROLL LICENSE
Nooo, it's Karen Hill again!
Troll troll troll. Sing along
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
