From: Ben Finney
This thread is already off-topic and too long. I'm conflicted about my
role in that;
I have endeavoured only to address falsehoods that IMO were not
otherwise being addressed.
So I'll try to keep this brief.
Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us writes:
This doesn't make sense
--- On Sat, 5/15/10, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
From: Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au
Subject: Re: Picking a license
To: python-list@python.org
Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010, 12:57 AM
a...@pythoncraft.com
(Aahz) writes:
You can't really sell Open Source software
--- On Sat, 5/15/10, Duncan Booth duncan.bo...@invalid.invalid wrote:
From: Duncan Booth duncan.bo...@invalid.invalid
Subject: Re: Picking a license
To: python-list@python.org
Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010, 8:52 AM
Ed Keith e_...@yahoo.com
wrote:
I can not imagine anyone being stupid
--- On Sat, 5/15/10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand
wrote:
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand
Subject: Re: Picking a license
To: python-list@python.org
Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010, 11:09 PM
In message mailman.164.1273846256.32709.python-l
Paul Boddie wrote:
As I said before, spare me the condescension.
Spare us your self-righteous bull-crap.
Do you think we haven't seen your false accusations and made-up motives
against Patrick Maupin? If I cared more and/or had more time, I'd make
a summary -- but quite frankly Pat has
On 2010-05-16 09:25 , Ed Keith wrote:
--- On Sat, 5/15/10, Lawrence D'Oliveirol...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand
wrote:
From: Lawrence D'Oliveirol...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand
Subject: Re: Picking a license
To: python-list@python.org
Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010, 11:09 PM
--- On Tue, 5/18/10, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Picking a license
To: python-list@python.org
Date: Tuesday, May 18, 2010, 12:03 PM
On 2010-05-16 09:25 , Ed Keith
wrote:
--- On Sat, 5/15/10, Lawrence D'Oliveirol...@geek
On May 18, 11:03 am, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2010-05-16 09:25 , Ed Keith wrote:
No, the GPL makes it clear that the responsibly is on the distributor to
either supply the source or written notice, Caveat venditor. The violation
exists regardless of whether or not the
Ben Finney wrote:
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes:
Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
[It is impractical to] sell free software like selling loaves of
bread, but that's a much more limited case and a far cry from your
claim [that it's impractical to sell free software]. Selling
This thread is already off-topic and too long. I'm conflicted about my
role in that; I have endeavoured only to address falsehoods that IMO
were not otherwise being addressed.
So I'll try to keep this brief.
Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us writes:
This doesn't make sense to me, but I'm willing
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes:
Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
[It is impractical to] sell free software like selling loaves of
bread, but that's a much more limited case and a far cry from your
claim [that it's impractical to sell free software]. Selling free
software is
--- On Sat, 5/15/10, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Picking a license
To: python-list@python.org
Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010, 1:10 PM
On 2010-05-14 21:37 , Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 06:42:31 -0700, Ed Keith
--- On Sat, 5/15/10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand
wrote:
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand
Subject: Re: Picking a license
To: python-list@python.org
Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010, 11:06 PM
In message mailman.198.1273891662.32709.python-l
On May 16, 9:19 am, Ed Keith e_...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Sat, 5/15/10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand
wrote:
But what about the “freedom” to take away
other
people’s freedom? Is that really “freedom”?
Yes.
But that’s a “freedom” that non-GPL licences do
In article 87r5ldbw3k@benfinney.id.au,
Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes:
You can't really sell Open Source software in any practical way;
someone will always undercut you once it's out in the wild. You can
only sell support for the software,
On May 15, 12:50 am, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:37:14 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
The most obvious example was that the University of Berkley counter-sued
Unix System Laboratories over USL's infringement of the BSD licence.
Well, I
On Fri, 14 May 2010 19:17:20 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
On May 14, 9:04 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message 548024fc-
dd56-48b9-907d-3aa6a722b...@l31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, Patrick
Maupin wrote:
The confusion that some are showing in this
On May 15, 1:34 am, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 19:17:20 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
On May 14, 9:04 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message 548024fc-
--- On Fri, 5/14/10, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au
wrote:
From: Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au
Subject: Re: Picking a license
To: python-list@python.org
Date: Friday, May 14, 2010, 10:59 PM
On Fri, 14 May 2010 06:39:05 -0700,
Ed Keith wrote
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 06:24:04 -0700, Ed Keith wrote:
--- On Thu, 5/13/10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
What have you got against LGPL for this purpose? --
Most of my clients would not know how to relink a program if their life
depended
Brendan Abel wrote:
While I think most of the disagreement in this long thread results
from different beliefs in what freedom means, I wanted to add, that
most of the responses that argue that the MIT license permits the user
more freedom than the GPL, suffer from the broken window fallacy.
This
--- On Thu, 5/13/10, Steven D'Aprano ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au
wrote:
From: Steven D'Aprano ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au
Subject: Re: Picking a license
To: python-list@python.org
Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 7:41 PM
On Thu, 13 May 2010 06:24:04 -0700,
Ed Keith wrote
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:10:09 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
The only time
that comes into play in my programming life is *when I have to recode*
something that is nominally available under the GPL,
You've never had to recode something because it was nominally available
Ed Keith e_...@yahoo.com wrote:
I can not imagine anyone being stupid enough to pay me for rights to
use code I had already published under the Boost License, which grants
then the rights to do anything they want with it without paying me
anything.
-EdK
Really?
The Boost License says,
In article mailman.201.1273900677.32709.python-l...@python.org,
Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes:
Which license you use depends partly on your political philosophy.
Did they close down debian-legal, or why is this thread growing so long?
Mea culpa,
In article 7bfa5457-027d-4ee1-a54f-3c0baba45...@e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com,
Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com wrote:
So, there are good reasons for both kinds of licenses, which I think
everybody on the pro-permissive side has been saying all along. Of
course, force is a more inflammatory word
On 2010-05-14 21:37 , Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 06:42:31 -0700, Ed Keith wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but as I understand the LGPL, If I give someone
something that used any LGPLed code I must give them the ability to
relink it with any future releases of the LGPLed code. I think
In article 7bdce8a7-bf7d-4f1f-bc9d-1eca26974...@d27g2000yqc.googlegroups.com,
Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com wrote:
SNIP
That is correct. All privileges as you put it are merely things
that a user can do with the code without fear of a lawsuit by the
author, and when an author uses a
On May 14, 8:04 am, Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
You've never had to recode something because it was nominally available
under a proprietary licence that you (or your client) was unwilling to
use? Lucky you!
Steven, did you actually read what he wrote? If
On May 15, 12:49 pm, Albert van der Horst alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl
wrote:
In article
7bdce8a7-bf7d-4f1f-bc9d-1eca26974...@d27g2000yqc.googlegroups.com,
Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com wrote:
SNIP
That is correct. All privileges as you put it are merely things
that a user can do with
On 15 Mai, 04:20, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message
a26e8cac-6561-40f6-ae3f-cfe176ecb...@l31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, Paul
Boddie wrote:
Although people can argue that usage of the GPL prevents people from
potentially contributing because they would
Paul Boddie p...@boddie.org.uk writes:
especially as the about page for PySide spells out the licensing
objective. Take away the proprietary software requirement and you
might as well use the GPL.
Thank you for mentioning PySide, I wasn't aware of this project.
--
John Bokma
On May 15, 2:59 pm, Paul Boddie p...@boddie.org.uk wrote:
[Rest of the post, that contains points previously debated and well-
refuted, snipped]
Any claim that a licensing change is needed merely to let people
develop open source applications on the platform is dishonest,
See, there you go
On 15 Mai, 03:46, Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 14, 6:52 pm, Paul Boddie p...@boddie.org.uk wrote:
And suggesting that people have behavioural disorders (Or because
have OCD?) might be a source of amusement to you, or may be a neat
debating trick in certain circles you
In message
ca0d6fd3-4883-4a82-bbea-a33c283c4...@d12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com, Patrick
Maupin wrote:
On May 14, 9:21 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message mailman.180.1273860694.32709.python-l...@python.org, Ed
Keith wrote:
I just refuse to use [the
In message mailman.198.1273891662.32709.python-l...@python.org, Ed Keith
wrote:
On Fri, 5/14/10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message mailman.158.1273844352.32709.python-l...@python.org,
Ed Keith wrote:
Yes, under the GPL every one has one set of
In message
93d67bd9-6721-4759-a3de-412b95b29...@c11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com, Paul
Boddie wrote:
Although Bill Gates once apparently claimed that no-one needs the
source code for their word processor or office suite ...
Thereby committing the sealed-bonnet fallacy.
--
In message mailman.164.1273846256.32709.python-l...@python.org, Ed Keith
wrote:
But if my client give someone else a copy of the binary I gave them, they
are now in violation.
Why would they be in violation? It seems to me a violation would only occur
if someone asked them for the source,
On 2010-05-15 22:05 , Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message
ca0d6fd3-4883-4a82-bbea-a33c283c4...@d12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com, Patrick
Maupin wrote:
On May 14, 9:21 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveirol...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In
On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:18:47 -0700, Carl Banks wrote:
The thing you GPL fanbois refuse to understand or accept is that, in the
real world, a person or company who doesn't want to open source their
derivative work will only rarely be forced to by the GPL. They'll work
around it instead, vast
On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:10:09 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
The broken window fallacy is about labor that could have been spent
elsewhere if someone else had done something differently. The only time
that comes into play in my programming life is when I have to recode
something that is
On May 13, 10:59 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:18:47 -0700, Carl Banks wrote:
The thing you GPL fanbois refuse to understand or accept is that, in the
real world, a person or company who doesn't want to open source their
derivative
In message 2ff3643b-6ef1-4471-8438-
dcba0dc93...@a21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, Patrick Maupin wrote:
On May 13, 10:04 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message mailman.142.1273767256.32709.python-l...@python.org, Ed
Keith wrote:
The claim is being made
In message
2b17ee77-0e49-4a97-994c-7582f86c0...@r34g2000yqj.googlegroups.com, Patrick
Maupin wrote:
On May 13, 10:06 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
Under the GPL, everybody has exactly the same freedoms.
That's absolutely not true. For a start, the
On 13 Mai, 22:10, Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Just to deal with your Ubuntu high horse situation first, you should
take a look at the following for what people regard to be the best
practices around GPL-licensed software distribution:
--- On Thu, 5/13/10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand
wrote:
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand
Subject: Re: Picking a license
To: python-list@python.org
Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 11:06 PM
In message mailman.141.1273767256.32709.python-l
On 14 Mai, 03:56, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
IMO this only makes sense if one agrees that people should not be allowed
to sell software for money. Absent that agreement, your argument about
freedom seems rather limited.
You'll have to explain this to me because I don't quite follow
--- On Thu, 5/13/10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand
wrote:
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand
Subject: Re: Picking a license
To: python-list@python.org
Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 11:07 PM
In message mailman.133.1273757049.32709.python-l
--- On Thu, 5/13/10, Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Picking a license
To: python-list@python.org
Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 11:45 PM
On May 13, 10:06 pm, Lawrence
D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote
On 14 Mai, 05:35, Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com wrote:
I mean, it's in English and very technically precise, but if you
follow all the references, you quickly come to realize that the
license is a patch to the GPL.
It is a set of exceptions applied to version 3 of the GPL, done this
way so
--- On Fri, 5/14/10, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au
wrote:
The GPL ensures that once software has entered the commons
(and therefore
available for all), it can never be removed from the
commons. The MIT
licence does not. Now, you might argue that in practice
once
--- On Thu, 5/13/10, Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Picking a license
To: python-list@python.org
Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 11:35 PM
On May 13, 10:07 pm, Lawrence
D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
How
--- On Fri, 5/14/10, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au
wrote:
The GPL ensures that once software has entered the commons
(and therefore
available for all), it can never be removed from the
commons. The MIT
licence does not. Now, you might argue that in practice
once
On May 14, 8:47 am, Paul Boddie p...@boddie.org.uk wrote:
On 14 Mai, 05:35, Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com wrote:
I mean, it's in English and very technically precise, but if you
follow all the references, you quickly come to realize that the
license is a patch to the GPL.
It is a
On May 14, 9:10 am, Ed Keith e_...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Thu, 5/13/10, Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Picking a license
To: python-l...@python.org
Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 11:35 PM
On May 13, 10:07 pm, Lawrence
On May 14, 1:08 am, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:10:09 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
The broken window fallacy is about labor that could have been spent
elsewhere if someone else had done something differently. The only time
that comes
On 14 Mai, 09:08, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 13, 10:59 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au
wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:18:47 -0700, Carl Banks wrote:
2. Reimplment the functionality seperately (*cough* PySide)
Yes. So what? In what possible
On May 14, 8:26 am, Paul Boddie p...@boddie.org.uk wrote:
On 13 Mai, 22:10, Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com wrote:
Just to deal with your Ubuntu high horse situation first, you should
take a look at the following for what people regard to be the best
practices around GPL-licensed software
On May 14, 6:12 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message 2ff3643b-6ef1-4471-8438-
dcba0dc93...@a21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, Patrick Maupin wrote:
On May 13, 10:04 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message
On May 14, 6:13 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message
2b17ee77-0e49-4a97-994c-7582f86c0...@r34g2000yqj.googlegroups.com, Patrick
Maupin wrote:
On May 13, 10:06 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
Under the GPL,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Are you implying that by distributing your libraries under the MIT or
Apache licence, no linking is required? That's a cool trick, can you
explain how it works please?
Err.. Linking statically with library in question? Which excludes LGPL
for legal reasons and doesn't
Assertion II:
If person A is free do perform an action person B is not free to
perform then person A is free to do more than person B.
This does not hold water. Let's say there are only 10 activities
available. Person A can do number 1 and person B can not. Person
B can do activities
--- On Fri, 5/14/10, Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Picking a license
To: python-list@python.org
Date: Friday, May 14, 2010, 11:47 AM
On May 14, 6:13 am, Lawrence
D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message
--- On Fri, 5/14/10, Tobiah t...@rcsreg.com wrote:
From: Tobiah t...@rcsreg.com
Subject: Re: Picking a license
To: python-list@python.org
Date: Friday, May 14, 2010, 11:59 AM
Assertion II:
If person A is free do perform an action
person B is not free to
perform then person
On 14 Mai, 17:37, Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com wrote:
Before, you were busy pointing me at the GPL FAQ as authoritative.
No, the licence is the authority, although the FAQ would probably be
useful to clarify the licence author's intent in a litigation
environment.
[Fast-forward through the
On May 14, 10:20 am, Paul Boddie p...@boddie.org.uk wrote:
On 14 Mai, 09:08, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 13, 10:59 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au
wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:18:47 -0700, Carl Banks wrote:
2. Reimplment the
On May 14, 11:48 am, Paul Boddie p...@boddie.org.uk wrote:
On 14 Mai, 17:37, Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com wrote:
Before, you were busy pointing me at the GPL FAQ as authoritative.
No, the licence is the authority, although the FAQ would probably be
useful to clarify the licence
In article 4be9554...@dnews.tpgi.com.au,
Lie Ryan lie.1...@gmail.com wrote:
SNIP
Come on, 99% of the projects released under GPL did so because they
don't want to learn much about the law; they just need to release it
under a certain license so their users have some legal certainty. Most
On 14 Mai, 19:00, Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com wrote:
Would you have agreed had he had said that MatLab's license doesn't
do much good and assigned the same sort of meaning to that statement,
namely that the MatLab license prevented enough motivated people from
freely using MatLab in ways
--- On Fri, 5/14/10, Albert van der Horst alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:
This is a big reason for me to release everything (see my
website,
it is a *lot*) under GPL. If someone wants to use it they
can,
if someone wants to use it commercially, they can too, as
long
as they pay me a
On May 14, 1:07 pm, Paul Boddie p...@boddie.org.uk wrote:
On 14 Mai, 19:00, Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com wrote:
Would you have agreed had he had said that MatLab's license doesn't
do much good and assigned the same sort of meaning to that statement,
namely that the MatLab license
On 14 Mai, 19:15, Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 14, 11:48 am, Paul Boddie p...@boddie.org.uk wrote:
Section 3 of GPLv2 (and section 6(d) of GPLv3 reads similarly): If
distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access
to copy from a designated place, then
On May 14, 1:38 pm, Paul Boddie p...@boddie.org.uk wrote:
On 14 Mai, 19:15, Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 14, 11:48 am, Paul Boddie p...@boddie.org.uk wrote:
Section 3 of GPLv2 (and section 6(d) of GPLv3 reads similarly): If
distribution of executable or object code is
--- On Fri, 5/14/10, Paul Boddie p...@boddie.org.uk wrote:
lots of stuff snipped
Like I said, if you really have a problem with
Ubuntu shipping CDs and
exposing others to copyright infringement
litigation.
A lot more stuff snipped
Everyone is assuming a certain degree of computer
On 14 Mai, 20:36, Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com wrote:
That statement was made in the context of why Carl doesn't use GPL-
licensed *libraries*. He and I have both explained the difference
between libraries and programs multiple times, not that you care.
Saying that GPL-licensed
--- On Fri, 5/14/10, Paul Boddie p...@boddie.org.uk wrote:
snip
No, PySide is about permitting the development of
proprietary
applications by providing a solution to the all-important
ISVs which
lets them develop and deploy proprietary software. Do you
really think
a platform vendor
On May 14, 2:26 pm, Paul Boddie p...@boddie.org.uk wrote:
On 14 Mai, 20:36, Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com wrote:
That statement was made in the context of why Carl doesn't use GPL-
licensed *libraries*. He and I have both explained the difference
between libraries and programs
On 14 Mai, 22:12, Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com wrote:
I *obviously*
was explaining that projects which *aren't* marginal, such as PyQt and
MatLab, are the *only* kinds of projects that would be rewritten for a
simple license change.
As far as your comments about PyQt proving out the
On 14 Mai, 21:14, Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com wrote:
If Joe downloads and burns a CD for his friend, he may not have the
sources and may not have any intention of getting them, and probably
didn't provide a written offer. What you're ignoring for the
moment is my whole point, that
On 14 Mai, 21:18, Ed Keith e_...@yahoo.com wrote:
The GPL is fine when all parties concern understand what source code is
and what to do with it. But when you add people like my father to the loop
if gets very ugly very fast.
Sure, and when I'm not otherwise being accused of pushing one
The following lines from
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html
seem to cover the case of someone who casually redistributes, for free,
Ubuntu or whatever. Such can refer people back to the Ubuntu site. They
should, perhaps, be familiar with the url, but I would
On May 14, 8:20 am, Paul Boddie p...@boddie.org.uk wrote:
On 14 Mai, 09:08, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 13, 10:59 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au
wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:18:47 -0700, Carl Banks wrote:
2. Reimplment the
On May 14, 6:42 pm, Paul Boddie p...@boddie.org.uk wrote:
You really should slow down and read a bit more carefully.
You might want to tone down the condescension.
I didn't start out condescending, and I agree I could have worded this
particular statement a bit more clearly, so I apologize
On May 14, 7:24 pm, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
The option to provide an offer for source rather than direct source
distribution is a special benefit to companies equipped to handle a
fulfillment process. GPLv2 § 3(c) and GPLv3 § 6(c) avoid burdening
noncommercial, occasional
On May 14, 6:52 pm, Paul Boddie p...@boddie.org.uk wrote:
On 14 Mai, 21:14, Patrick Maupin pmau...@gmail.com wrote:
If Joe downloads and burns a CD for his friend, he may not have the
sources and may not have any intention of getting them, and probably
didn't provide a written offer. What
In message 84a26d03-03b3-47d9-
a1f9-107470b87...@k2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, Patrick Maupin wrote:
I also firmly believe, as I have stated before, that the GPL is a much
more commercial license. If you want to make money off something,
then, no doubt, GPL keeps your competitors from being
In message mailman.158.1273844352.32709.python-l...@python.org, Ed Keith
wrote:
Yes, under the GPL every one has one set of freedoms, under the MIT or
Boost license every one has more freedoms. Under other licenses they have
fewer freedoms.
But what about the “freedom” to take away other
In message
ab78bcb6-f07c-4d6c-b6aa-961f4ff59...@i9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com, Patrick
Maupin wrote:
On May 14, 6:12 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand
wrote:
In message
2ff3643b-6ef1-4471-8438-dcba0dc93...@a21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com,
Patrick Maupin wrote:
On May
In message 548024fc-
dd56-48b9-907d-3aa6a722b...@l31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, Patrick Maupin
wrote:
The confusion that some are showing in this thread about whether source
must be distributed certainly helps to show that as well.
What “confusion”? The GPL requires that source must always be
In message
5e719bcd-5405-4c34-870b-13e64ef1f...@k29g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, Patrick
Maupin wrote:
On May 14, 6:13 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message
2b17ee77-0e49-4a97-994c-7582f86c0...@r34g2000yqj.googlegroups.com,
Patrick Maupin wrote:
On
In message mailman.173.1273853893.32709.python-l...@python.org, Ed Keith
wrote:
That is one good reason for choosing to use the GPL, instead of a less
restrictive license. You can license it, for a fee, to someone who wants
to use it in some way that is not allowed under the GPL.
Replace
On May 14, 9:02 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message
ab78bcb6-f07c-4d6c-b6aa-961f4ff59...@i9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com, Patrick
Maupin wrote:
On May 14, 6:12 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand
wrote:
In message
On May 14, 9:04 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message 548024fc-
dd56-48b9-907d-3aa6a722b...@l31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, Patrick Maupin
wrote:
The confusion that some are showing in this thread about whether source
must be distributed certainly helps
In message
e5a031a3-d097-4a63-b87a-7ddfb9e90...@n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com, Patrick
Maupin wrote:
After all, lots of software ideas proved their worth in proprietary
systems, and then were later cloned by FOSS developers.
And vice versa. Everybody, whether working in closed or open
In message
a26e8cac-6561-40f6-ae3f-cfe176ecb...@l31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, Paul
Boddie wrote:
Although people can argue that usage of the GPL prevents people from
potentially contributing because they would not be able to sell
proprietary versions of the software ...
It doesn’t prevent
In message mailman.180.1273860694.32709.python-l...@python.org, Ed Keith
wrote:
I just refuse to use [the GPL] in any code for a client, because I
do not want to require someone who does not know source code from Morse
code code to figure out what they need to do to avoid violating the
In message a4d8f55f-7845-4299-
bfb8-5c2f15914...@f13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, Paul Boddie wrote:
If you think the mobile telephony vendors are a bunch of fluffy bunny
rabbits playing with each other in sugary meadows of niceness, I don't
want to be present when someone directly and finally
On May 14, 8:57 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message 84a26d03-03b3-47d9-
a1f9-107470b87...@k2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, Patrick Maupin wrote:
I also firmly believe, as I have stated before, that the GPL is a much
more commercial license. If you want
On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:04:53 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
On May 14, 1:08 am, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:10:09 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
The broken window fallacy is about labor that could have been spent
elsewhere if someone else
On May 14, 9:21 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message mailman.180.1273860694.32709.python-l...@python.org, Ed Keith
wrote:
I just refuse to use [the GPL] in any code for a client, because I
do not want to require someone who does not know source code
1 - 100 of 254 matches
Mail list logo
