Matthew C. Weigel writes:
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
If you don't value freedom for its effects (admittedly a pragmatic
argument), why do you value it?
On ethical grounds- it is not an effect, an incidence, of freedom, that
I value.
Okay, then I hereby pronounce
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
But you *did* say free software licenses according to the FSF. But
that's precisely what I was objecting to -- your implication that the
FSF defines free software and that nobody else's opinion matters.
Please stop, and think about what you're
David Johnson writes:
Practicality leads to moral results, and morality leads to practical results.
Open Source is free and Free Software is open. There is no need to divide
this community up into factions.
Quite true. However, we don't want the actions of bearded radicals to
scare the
John Cowan writes:
One must be careful about the meaning of distributed. AFAICT, if I
(a Reuters employee) download APSLed code and make a Modification to it
solely for my own use qua employee, not distributing it within Reuters
at all, that is not Personal Use, it is still Deployed code
Russell Nelson wrote:
In the real world, with judges, lawyers, and courts, Apple would have
to 1) discover that you have used it personally as an employee, and 2)
prove that you did this wearing your employee hat, as opposed to the
personal use of your work computer.
It is not clear to me
John Cowan writes:
As for your second point, it is also quite unclear from the license,
at least to me (IANAL), just who it is that has the burden of persuasion
on the subject of Deployment. Must Apple prove that my use was
commercial, or is it up to me to prove that it was not?
True.
Free is the right word for some people,
because free software is right for their situation.
Open is the right word for some people,
because open is right for their situation.
The conflict arises when people confuse
what is right for them
and mistakenly think they have figured out
what is
Matthew C. Weigel writes:
It just so happens that the people involved with the OSI are
*motivated* by the social/ethical concerns, but try to present the
pragmatic issues in order to convince people. They are not trying to
be pragmatic, they are simply accepting that other people are
Martin Konold writes:
According to RMS the only way to become free software aka GPL compatible
is either to have it GPL licensed or allow for conversion/relicensing to
GPL.
I believe this is an accurate statement. Since the GPL requires that
GPL'ed software have no extra restrictions
Matthew C. Weigel writes:
More appropriate on technical and pragmatic grounds, if I've read the
essays right :)
If you don't value freedom for its effects (admittedly a pragmatic
argument), why do you value it?
There's another possibility: that RMS pulled his objection to the
APSL out
begin Russell Nelson quotation:
RMS is up-front about his objection to the APSL. It is not for any
restrictions on the distribution of the software, but instead for the
requirement to publish the source code to deployed modifications.
I hadn't previously looked up Stallman's views on
Russell Nelson wrote:
RMS is up-front about his objection to the APSL
[...] for the requirement to publish the source code to deployed
modifications. Note that the APSL is not talking about private
modifications, but instead modifications which have been distributed
within an enterprise.
Everyone breath for a second.
My understanding of David's original post was
to assert that open and free were meaningless
distinctions. because of Adam Smith's
notion of Invisible Hand, it didn't matter
where you start, you end up at effectively
the same end point. Therfore there is no
need
Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 03:51:53PM -0400, Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Martin Konold writes:
According to RMS the only way to become free software aka GPL
compatible is either to have it GPL licensed or allow for
conversion/relicensing to GPL.
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
This is a very good summary.
See? I'm not out to demonize you :)
The FSF argues that, without the social/ethical committment to free
software, their committment to open source changes like the wind.
Well, more accurately (IMO), the FSF argues that
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
If you don't value freedom for its effects (admittedly a pragmatic
argument), why do you value it?
On ethical grounds- it is not an effect, an incidence, of freedom, that
I value.
I don't agree. I think that there are problems with it.
Like
On Monday 01 October 2001 17:00, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
If you don't value freedom for its effects (admittedly a pragmatic
argument), why do you value it?
On ethical grounds- it is not an effect, an incidence, of freedom, that
I value.
To play
nOn Sat, 29 Sep 2001, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
Hi,
Certainly, there are OSD-compliant licenses which are not free software
licenses according to the FSF - accordingly, claiming that pragmatic
open source is every bit as free, and social free software is every bit
as pragmatic, can not be
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Martin Konold wrote:
According to RMS the only way to become free software aka GPL compatible
is either to have it GPL licensed or allow for conversion/relicensing to
GPL.
This is factually incorrect. RMS does not require free software to be
GPL compatible. As he
Matthew C. Weigel writes:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, David Johnson wrote:
back about people having their heads in the clouds. The pundits on
both sides have stipulated a choice between morality and pragmatism.
I can only disagree with this. RMS has never said that free software
was
On Saturday 29 September 2001 16:39, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
I can only disagree with this. RMS has never said that free software
was unpragmatic, or that a pragmatic person would necessarily choose
non-free software. The argument is that, pragmatic *or not*, free
software is the answer
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
No, the argument is that proprietary software is immoral and unethical.
Sorry, I did not intend to make expansive arguments about the sum total of
motivations. I was specifically referring to the idea that software
licenses should not restrict us
On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, David Johnson wrote:
You're not seeing the forest through the trees. The invisible hand
is the forest.
No, I'm seeing hills, and you're calling it a forest.
The FSF and OSI distance themselves from one another politically, and
advocates of one over another disagree, but
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, David Johnson wrote:
back about people having their heads in the clouds. The pundits on
both sides have stipulated a choice between morality and pragmatism.
I can only disagree with this. RMS has never said that free software
was unpragmatic, or that a pragmatic person
24 matches
Mail list logo
