On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 08:38:35AM -0500, Richard M Stallman wrote:
I don't think it is that bad - the intent is for the software to be
freely available for *people* to use. It is actually about our freedom.
You have it right. Copyleft licenses defend freedom for all users by
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:31:15 +0800, Morton Harrow said:
I see with pain in my heart that the GPLv3 doesn't actually give the
users of GPLv3 software the liberty and freedom the FSF has been
fighting for. Instead they are forced to play by the strict set of
All this GPL blah blah is a huge waste of time. It comes down to this;
nearly everyone on this list thinks that the GPL is criminally stupid so
stop trying to convince people here that it does not suck dog ass.
Lets not have this retarded debate again, *we* know *you* are wrong, end
of story.
Marco Peereboom wrote:
All this GPL blah blah is a huge waste of time. It comes down to this;
nearly everyone on this list thinks that the GPL is criminally stupid so
stop trying to convince people here that it does not suck dog ass.
Lets not have this retarded debate again, *we* know *you*
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:51:53 -0500
Travers Buda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to present GPL version 10^100^100! (that's not an
exclaimation, that's a factorial.)
Over the years, clauses have been _removed_ from BSD-like licenses.
The GPL keeps getting things _added_.
*insert some
Morton Harrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see with pain in my heart that the GPLv3 doesn't actually give the
users of GPLv3 software the liberty and freedom the FSF has been
fighting for. Instead they are forced to play by the strict set of
terms the GPLv3 provides.
For example, as a
Would you grant me the freedom to give away your commercial
product for free
or to incorporate it in my commercial product? Probably not. You'd instead
grant me less freedom. The GPL protects me from this.
Except it doesn't. With or without the GPL, if he still makes his commercial
product,
I'd like to present GPL version 10^100^100! (that's not an
exclaimation, that's a factorial.)
Over the years, clauses have been _removed_ from BSD-like licenses.
The GPL keeps getting things _added_.
*insert some sort of wisdom here about how this means BSD-like is better*
Reading (and
Morton Harrow wrote:
Let me first introduce myself. My name is Morton Harrow, senior
GNU/Linux consultant in the London metropolitan area. I have
been around in the Open Source world since the early
beginning. I am very happy with the spirit and efforts of the
Free Software Foundation (FSF).
2008/7/17 Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Morton Harrow wrote:
Let me first introduce myself. My name is Morton Harrow, senior
GNU/Linux consultant in the London metropolitan area. I have
been around in the Open Source world since the early
beginning. I am very happy with the spirit and efforts
On Jul 16, 2008, Morton Harrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see with pain in my heart that the GPLv3 doesn't actually give the
users of GPLv3 software the liberty and freedom the FSF has been
fighting for. Instead they are forced to play by the strict set of
terms the GPLv3 provides.
For
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:21:28 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 16, 2008, Morton Harrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Blah, blah, blah...
8 snip loads of irrelevant shit.
Can all you bastards take this discussion to somewhere where it is
relevant instead of blindly CCing to all the addresses
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, David Collier-Brown wrote:
Morton Harrow wrote:
Shouldn't GPL versions follow the bright example of TeX, and thus the
next version be 3.1?
To quote Fred Weigel, they should be
3
3.1
3.14
3.141
3.1415
3.14159
--dave
--
David
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Morton Harrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear gentlemen (and included list-members),
Let me first introduce myself. My name is Morton Harrow, senior GNU/Linux
Hmmm... something is telling me this message won't have a happy end.
consultant in the London
We have that already.
/*
* Copyright (c) CCYY YOUR NAME HERE [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
* purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
* copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all
Shouldn't GPL versions follow the bright example of TeX, and thus the
next version be 3.1?
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 08:06:23PM +, Miod Vallat wrote:
Shouldn't GPL versions follow the bright example of TeX, and thus the
next version be 3.1?
That might converge in some sense. If the end is to be something
like license.template, then we're talking about GPL version theta,
where
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:31:15 +0800, Morton Harrow said:
I see with pain in my heart that the GPLv3 doesn't actually give the
users of GPLv3 software the liberty and freedom the FSF has been
fighting for. Instead they are forced to play by the strict set of
terms the GPLv3 provides.
You
- Original Message -
From: Miod Vallat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Morton Harrow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: GPL version 4
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:06:23 +
Shouldn't GPL versions follow the bright example of TeX, and thus the
next version be 3.1?
Hi Miod,
Most of the people
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 05:31:15AM +0800, Morton Harrow wrote:
In addition to the announcement of the GPLv4, I was trying to discuss
another point.
Piss off.
1) if you read the text of GPL, you will notice that later
versions are explicitly limited to the versions published by FSF.
Morton Harrow wrote:
Shouldn't GPL versions follow the bright example of TeX, and thus the
next version be 3.1?
To quote Fred Weigel, they should be
3
3.1
3.14
3.141
3.1415
3.14159
--dave
--
David Collier-Brown| Always do right. This
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 05:41:50PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You missed an important philosophical point. In Richard Stallman's
world view, it isn't the user's freedoms that matter, it's the
*software*s freedom.
Oh, great. First poeple bend the term freedom (like FSF does),
then they
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Morton Harrow wrote:
Dear gentlemen (and included list-members),
Let me first introduce myself. My name is Morton Harrow, senior GNU/Linux
consultant in the London metropolitan area. I have been around in the Open
Source world since the early beginning. I am very happy
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Morton Harrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our planned release date of GPLv4 is 15th September 2008.
That's scary. I'm staying indoors, shutting down any linux/windows
pc's and not leaving the house that day.
Most of the people who have replied seem to be missing the point.
I just don't know what you brought the discussion to this mailing
list. If it is of serious concern to you, and if you haven't realized
that he probably won't care (or agree), talk to rms about this.
Either way, it's all your
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 05:31 +0800, Morton Harrow wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Miod Vallat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Morton Harrow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: GPL version 4
snip
a high quality piece of GPLv3 software in a commercial product,
which for bussiness strategic
26 matches
Mail list logo
