Jeff Garzik wrote:
Jonathan A. George wrote:
... But is it _ethical_ (as opposed to legal) to violate the expressed
intent of the original author ...
The author expresses his intent primarily by choice of license text, and
it's very important to all of us that we follow the rules set forth
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Jonathan A. George wrote:
... But is it _ethical_ (as opposed to legal) to violate the expressed
intent of the original author ...
The author expresses his intent primarily by choice of license text, and
it's very important to all of us that we follow the rules set forth
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 11:10:52 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:23:37 PDT, David Schwartz said:
> > > Wrong - I said "You can't complain about Person A doing X when
> > > you let Person
> > > B do X without complaint".
> >
> > Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:23:37 PDT, David Schwartz said:
>
> > Wrong - I said "You can't complain about Person A doing X when
> > you let Person
> > B do X without complaint".
>
> Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between acting in one case and failing
> to act in another. We need not act in
On 03-09-2007 18:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 16:03:07 +0200, Marc Espie said:
>
>> Look at the situation: Reyk Floeter writes some code, puts it
>> under a dual licence, and goes on vacation.
>>
>> While he's away, some other people (Jiri, for starters) tweak the
>>
On 03-09-2007 18:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 16:03:07 +0200, Marc Espie said:
Look at the situation: Reyk Floeter writes some code, puts it
under a dual licence, and goes on vacation.
While he's away, some other people (Jiri, for starters) tweak the
copyright and
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:23:37 PDT, David Schwartz said:
Wrong - I said You can't complain about Person A doing X when
you let Person
B do X without complaint.
Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between acting in one case and failing
to act in another. We need not act in every
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 11:10:52 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:23:37 PDT, David Schwartz said:
Wrong - I said You can't complain about Person A doing X when
you let Person
B do X without complaint.
Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between acting in one
On Monday 03 September 2007 20:23:37 David Schwartz wrote:
> > Wrong - I said "You can't complain about Person A doing X when
> > you let Person
> > B do X without complaint".
>
> Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between acting in one case and
> failing to act in another. We need not act in
> Wrong - I said "You can't complain about Person A doing X when
> you let Person
> B do X without complaint".
Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between acting in one case and failing
to act in another. We need not act in every possible case where we could act
to preserve our right to act in
On Monday 03 September 2007 13:18:35 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Then go yell at Mr. Floeter. The code is dual-licensed and he put
> > BSD-License
> > only code in it. Because that's the *EXACT* *SAME* thing you're talking
> > about.
>
> Actually it is
(As noted before - I am surround all-caps text with *'s to indicate vocal
stress, not volume)
On Monday 03 September 2007 05:47:59 David Schwartz wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > > Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that
> > > these licenses
> > > are compatible. They are
Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Then go yell at Mr. Floeter. The code is dual-licensed and he put
> BSD-License
> only code in it. Because that's the *EXACT* *SAME* thing you're talking
> about.
Actually it is not.
Dual BSD/GPL licence essentially means BSD, because rights given
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 16:03:07 +0200, Marc Espie said:
> Look at the situation: Reyk Floeter writes some code, puts it
> under a dual licence, and goes on vacation.
>
> While he's away, some other people (Jiri, for starters) tweak the
> copyright and licence on the file he's mostly written.
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that
> > these licenses
> > are compatible. They are not. You cannot put code that was offered under
> > the GPLv2 into code that is licensed under the dual license and
> > distribute
> > the result.
> Then go yell
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that
these licenses
are compatible. They are not. You cannot put code that was offered under
the GPLv2 into code that is licensed under the dual license and
distribute
the result.
Then go yell at Mr.
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 16:03:07 +0200, Marc Espie said:
Look at the situation: Reyk Floeter writes some code, puts it
under a dual licence, and goes on vacation.
While he's away, some other people (Jiri, for starters) tweak the
copyright and licence on the file he's mostly written. Without
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then go yell at Mr. Floeter. The code is dual-licensed and he put
BSD-License
only code in it. Because that's the *EXACT* *SAME* thing you're talking
about.
Actually it is not.
Dual BSD/GPL licence essentially means BSD, because rights given by
(As noted before - I am surround all-caps text with *'s to indicate vocal
stress, not volume)
On Monday 03 September 2007 05:47:59 David Schwartz wrote:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that
these licenses
are compatible. They are not. You
On Monday 03 September 2007 13:18:35 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then go yell at Mr. Floeter. The code is dual-licensed and he put
BSD-License
only code in it. Because that's the *EXACT* *SAME* thing you're talking
about.
Actually it is not.
Dual
Wrong - I said You can't complain about Person A doing X when
you let Person
B do X without complaint.
Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between acting in one case and failing
to act in another. We need not act in every possible case where we could act
to preserve our right to act in a
On Monday 03 September 2007 20:23:37 David Schwartz wrote:
Wrong - I said You can't complain about Person A doing X when
you let Person
B do X without complaint.
Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between acting in one case and
failing to act in another. We need not act in every
On Sunday 02 September 2007 22:01:17 David Schwartz wrote:
> > Letting aside the legality of that change, why would such a change
> > be needed ? The licensing is perfectly clear: the file is available
> > under the ISC licence, OR the GPL licence. This doesn't cause any
> > problem for the linux
> Letting aside the legality of that change, why would such a change
> be needed ? The licensing is perfectly clear: the file is available
> under the ISC licence, OR the GPL licence. This doesn't cause any
> problem for the linux kernel. The ISC licence is perfectly compatible
> with the GPL
On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 16:03 +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
[...]
> So, now, it's down to dirty fighting. Absorbing and `relicensing' and
> evolving code. Have you all been bitten my RMS paranoia (that leads to
> this `interesting GPLv3) ? Do you intend to keep grabbing BSD code and
> putting it
Jonathan A. George wrote:
... But is it _ethical_ (as opposed to legal) to violate the expressed
intent of the original author ...
The author expresses his intent primarily by choice of license text, and
it's very important to all of us that we follow the rules set forth by
the author in
Matthew Jacob wrote:
> Question #1: Is it _ethical_ (legality aside) to take someone else's
actively maintained work (for example an OpenBSD driver) and make
changes which can not be shared/used by the original developer/maintainer?
Answer #1: Considering that the whole reason I personally
Jonathan A. George wrote:
Question #1: Is it _ethical_ (legality aside) to take someone else's
actively maintained work (for example an OpenBSD driver) and make
changes which can not be shared/used by the original developer/maintainer?
This happens all the time. It's called a fork.
Forks
> Question #1: Is it _ethical_ (legality aside) to take someone else's
> actively maintained work (for example an OpenBSD driver) and make
> changes which can not be shared/used by the original developer/maintainer?
>
> Answer #1: Considering that the whole reason I personally choose the GPL
>
(more serious reply now ensues)
Marc Espie wrote:
After reading the current email exchanges, I've become convinced
there is something VERY fishy going on, and some people there have
hidden agendas.
Look at the situation: Reyk Floeter writes some code, puts it
under a dual licence, and goes
While the title of Marc's email might be construed as flame bait, it is
disappointing to see that the generally very valid points he has made
(as both a BSD _and_ _GPL_ developer) are being ignored. To make it
simple try answering these two questions:
Question #1: Is it _ethical_
Marc Espie wrote:
> Let's extend the story a wee little bit. It seems that these days, some
> parts of the opensource community have gotten confident enough that they
> do not need the other part. We all know the situation is already fairly
> disymetric. The GPL is less free than the ISC licence
* Sun, 2 Sep 2007 16:03:07 +0200
>
> Hi. My name may not ring a bell for lots of lklm members.
Hallo, Marc. It's OK; shit happens, calm down, please.
[]
> Well, if that's truely the case, I may reconsider my good faith for future
> contributions. Heck, instead of giving away my code under the
On Sep 02, 2007, at 10:03:07, Marc Espie wrote:
Do you really think he's going to keep his work under a dual-
licence, seeing
how a bunch of rabid linux zealots are all but intent on stealing
his code
whenever they can.
[...snip...]
Oh god, not another Linux/*BSD month-long flamewar
> as git, this is no longer as cumbersome as this used to be. So, instead
> of new gcc code sent to the FSF (and given to the FSF), we could explicitly
> keep patches under the ISC licence, and explain loudly why this is so.
I think you need to learn about derivative works. That aside I'm not
Hi. My name may not ring a bell for lots of lklm members.
I am a long time OpenBSD developer, and I've contributed little
bits to a lot of opensource projects, to the extent that I've
got commit rights to gcc, binutils, kde. I've probably sent hundreds
of patches and tweaks to various projects
as git, this is no longer as cumbersome as this used to be. So, instead
of new gcc code sent to the FSF (and given to the FSF), we could explicitly
keep patches under the ISC licence, and explain loudly why this is so.
I think you need to learn about derivative works. That aside I'm not
aware
On Sep 02, 2007, at 10:03:07, Marc Espie wrote:
Do you really think he's going to keep his work under a dual-
licence, seeing
how a bunch of rabid linux zealots are all but intent on stealing
his code
whenever they can.
[...snip...]
Oh god, not another Linux/*BSD month-long flamewar
* Sun, 2 Sep 2007 16:03:07 +0200
Hi. My name may not ring a bell for lots of lklm members.
Hallo, Marc. It's OK; shit happens, calm down, please.
[]
Well, if that's truely the case, I may reconsider my good faith for future
contributions. Heck, instead of giving away my code under the GPL, I
Marc Espie wrote:
Let's extend the story a wee little bit. It seems that these days, some
parts of the opensource community have gotten confident enough that they
do not need the other part. We all know the situation is already fairly
disymetric. The GPL is less free than the ISC licence for
While the title of Marc's email might be construed as flame bait, it is
disappointing to see that the generally very valid points he has made
(as both a BSD _and_ _GPL_ developer) are being ignored. To make it
simple try answering these two questions:
Question #1: Is it _ethical_
(more serious reply now ensues)
Marc Espie wrote:
After reading the current email exchanges, I've become convinced
there is something VERY fishy going on, and some people there have
hidden agendas.
Look at the situation: Reyk Floeter writes some code, puts it
under a dual licence, and goes
Question #1: Is it _ethical_ (legality aside) to take someone else's
actively maintained work (for example an OpenBSD driver) and make
changes which can not be shared/used by the original developer/maintainer?
Answer #1: Considering that the whole reason I personally choose the GPL
for some
Jonathan A. George wrote:
Question #1: Is it _ethical_ (legality aside) to take someone else's
actively maintained work (for example an OpenBSD driver) and make
changes which can not be shared/used by the original developer/maintainer?
This happens all the time. It's called a fork.
Forks
Matthew Jacob wrote:
Question #1: Is it _ethical_ (legality aside) to take someone else's
actively maintained work (for example an OpenBSD driver) and make
changes which can not be shared/used by the original developer/maintainer?
Answer #1: Considering that the whole reason I personally
Jonathan A. George wrote:
... But is it _ethical_ (as opposed to legal) to violate the expressed
intent of the original author ...
The author expresses his intent primarily by choice of license text, and
it's very important to all of us that we follow the rules set forth by
the author in
On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 16:03 +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
[...]
So, now, it's down to dirty fighting. Absorbing and `relicensing' and
evolving code. Have you all been bitten my RMS paranoia (that leads to
this `interesting GPLv3) ? Do you intend to keep grabbing BSD code and
putting it
Letting aside the legality of that change, why would such a change
be needed ? The licensing is perfectly clear: the file is available
under the ISC licence, OR the GPL licence. This doesn't cause any
problem for the linux kernel. The ISC licence is perfectly compatible
with the GPL (note
On Sunday 02 September 2007 22:01:17 David Schwartz wrote:
Letting aside the legality of that change, why would such a change
be needed ? The licensing is perfectly clear: the file is available
under the ISC licence, OR the GPL licence. This doesn't cause any
problem for the linux kernel.
49 matches
Mail list logo
