> On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Twayne wrote: > >> IMO OOo is indeed akin to "public domain" in many aspects of the >> license and protection afforded to it. > > GNU LGPL has a clearly defined set of rights and obligations > associated with it. Violation of those rights is both a breach of > license and a breach of copyright law. > > Public Domain has no rights or obligations associated with it. As > such, there is no way to violate it. > > By conflating the two, you are impugning upon the moral rights of the > GNU LGPL creator, and as such violating copyright law. > >> One small company in town here refuses to even look at it, insisting >> that if it's any good it wouldn't be free and they "they" will >> extract their moneys somehow, probably in support charges. > > FLOSS meet TANSTAAFL. TANSTAAFL meet FLOSS. > > Whilst both FLOSS and TANSTAAFL come from the same > psychoepistomological weltanshuung, they reach different conclusions > about Ich und Du. > >> I wrote to the level of the impression I had of my audience, I >> didn't say it was exactly the same and that you could do everything >> with it you could do with public domain software, and I didn't say >> that there were no corporations discovering that in various courts. >> I did say it wasn't intended to be sold, and licensing terms, so as >> to not give the impression there weren't any, was mentioned. > >> I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. In fact I stand by >> what I said. > >> IMO, I think being able to charge anything but a trivial amount of >> money to "sell" OOo to anyone should be forbidden > > This is a discrimination against fields of endeavor, and as such, a > violation of the Four Freedoms. > >> To charge anything *more* than a trivial amount to recoup S&H etc. >> should require not only the source code as it does now, but the >> addition of a substantial and stated value-added feature set, say, >> over and above the original OOo, which should also have to be >> mentioned as being free. > > That would make OOo non open source software. Furthermore, instead > of encouraging companies to support it, it would discourage > them,because doing so would be a violation of the licence --- to wit, > a prohibition on engaging in their normal business activities. > >> As an example, if I take OOo and create a specialized financial >> spreadsheet for a company, then I should simply be able to say I did >> that, so I charge this much, but if you want to do it yourself, >> which most people cannot, here's where you can get the basic >> programs for free: > > There is nothing in the license that prevents you from including, or > excluding OOo with the specialized financial spreadsheet for OOo that > you created, and are peddling for US$100,000. (I'm somewhat > surprised that those spreadsheets are not available for OOo.) > >> I have not yet heard of any corporation "discovering that in >> various courts", although it does interest me. > > I'm not sure if it is a reference to D-link Germany DmbH, Fortinet, or > one of the companies that was sued by the FSF on behalf of BusyBox or > SCO's claim that the GNU GPL has no legal standing. It might also be a > reference to the Korean court that told the discloser of trade secrets > that it didn't matter what the GNU GPL required, trade secret law > prohibits what they were doing, and they should have done things > differently. > >> Can you, or anyone who wishes to, cite any specific information to >> support that? > > http://gpl-violations.org/ tracks violations and court cases involving > the GNU GPL. > > xan > > jonathon
You do of course see the comedic quality of your response, don't you? I have no idea who you are, who you think you are, or even who you really are, nor do I care, but come on, your pompousity is only outdone by your attempts to redirect comments into areas that were and are foreign to the post from the beginning. That's one of the oldest troller tricks in the books. Your educational abilities leave a LOT to be desired and indicate a rather myopic view of the world around you. I don't mean to be as confrontational as you are likely taking it, but you can show off your knowledge all you want and quote all the rules & regs you want, but a response such as this one is not going to sway me in the least. I consider myself pretty open minded and open to new information but all you've done is spout what you want to convey to others about what you know, rather than any serious response to anything. I just can't give anything like that any kind of credibility. So if you're looking for me to "debate" you point by point, forget it. I only let trollers suck me in just long enough to piss them off as a rule and then I forget about them. I reiterate, I said what I mean, and I meant what I said. If that bugs you, then so be it. And that said, there is no further point to further communications with you. Your comments are pointless and completely off the mark w/r to helping the OP and in fact completely disregard the OP, the ONLY person you should be concerned with here, and then only from a useful information standpoint. I've said all I have to say to you; from here on I'll not be bothering with your tripe. Enjoy and flame at will. Love yourself lots, Twayne --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
