On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 08:36:21AM +, Saifi Khan wrote:
There are two rights associated.
Rights to Usage
Rights to Modify
When you take a piece of code licensed under GPL and modify it, you
are required to make your changes available and also under the same
license ie. GPL. So the
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:36:44PM -0700, prad wrote:
thank you everyone for your comments on this topic.
A few more links:
+ Copyfree licensing
http://copyfree.org/
+ Copyfree vs. Copyleft
http://www.wikivs.com/wiki/Copyfree_vs_Copyleft
+ BSD/Copyfree vs. Corporate Copyleft
2009/3/11 David Kelly dke...@hiwaay.net:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:20:18AM -0700, prad wrote:
i've not paid much attention to licensing philosophy i the past,
because for me it was always windoze vs the goodguys.
however, recently i've become aware of there being a chasm within the
goodguys
2009/3/11 David Kelly dke...@hiwaay.net:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:20:18AM -0700, prad wrote:
i've not paid much attention to licensing philosophy i the past,
because for me it was always windoze vs the goodguys.
however, recently i've become aware of there being a chasm within the
goodguys
prad wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:20:18 -0700
prad p...@towardsfreedom.com wrote:
do people here have any thoughts on the two different licenses?
thank you everyone for your comments on this topic.
the links some of you provided were very interesting and helpful.
i had no idea
The ACM Queue (1 May 2004) article by Jay Michaelson of Wasabi
Systems is very insightful.
There is no such thing as Free (Software) lunch
Please take a look at
http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1005066
In 2009, you would like your product (esp infrastructure product
or platform) to reach out
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
The ACM Queue (1 May 2004) article by Jay Michaelson of Wasabi
Systems is very insightful.
There is no such thing as Free (Software) lunch
Please take a look at
http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1005066
In 2009, you would like your
Do you have any credible proof ?
yes. i used NetBSD quite a long. i started turning into crap just when
wasabisystems appeared and employed good deal of NetBSD developers.
Then i switched to FreeBSD because i wanted WORKING system, while older
version no longer worked on new computers.
Polytropon wrote:
I'd like to make an addition:
The freedom of the BSDL intentionally allows to close sources.
This can be considered theft, if one would like to use this
interpretation. When taking some BSDL code, there's no need
to contribute anything back.
One argument could be that the
i've not paid much attention to licensing philosophy i the past,
because for me it was always windoze vs the goodguys.
however, recently i've become aware of there being a chasm within the
goodguys in that the bsd attitude is do what you want as long as you
give credit to the creator, whereas the
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 8:20 AM, prad p...@towardsfreedom.com wrote:
however, recently i've become aware of there being a chasm within the
goodguys in that the bsd attitude is do what you want as long as you
give credit to the creator, whereas the gpl folks say do what you want
as long as you
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:20 AM, prad p...@towardsfreedom.com wrote:
do people here have any thoughts on the two different licenses?
--
In friendship,
prad
This is NOT a simple issue .
In
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_software_licences
i've not paid much attention to licensing philosophy i the past,
because for me it was always windoze vs the goodguys.
however, recently i've become aware of there being a chasm within the
goodguys in that the bsd attitude is do what you want as long as you
give credit to the creator, whereas
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:20:18AM -0700, prad wrote:
i've not paid much attention to licensing philosophy i the past,
because for me it was always windoze vs the goodguys.
however, recently i've become aware of there being a chasm within the
goodguys in that the bsd attitude is do what you
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:02:47 -0500, David Kelly dke...@hiwaay.net wrote:
The source code is always free under BSD, contrary to what GPL
proponents claim.
Terms like enslavement of code come into mind, BSD thieves
and others...
But this isn't only the case with BSDL. The MIT uses a similar
That's why the GPL is often called a viral license. As
GPL is a communist licence.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
Reader Chemisor advances a theory in his journal that a linguistic
misunderstanding is at the root of many disagreements over different
licensing philosophies, in particular BSD vs. GPL. The argument is that
GPL adherents desire the freedom of their /code/, while those on the BSD
side want freedom
At 16:09 11/03/2009, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
That's why the GPL is often called a viral license. As
GPL is a communist licence.
No, even communist are more generous ...
---
Useful Acronyms: GPL = Greedy Pengüin Licence
At 16:09 11/03/2009, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
That's why the GPL is often called a viral license. As
GPL is a communist licence.
No, even communist are more generous ...
It's not funny. Communism is common today, and it's getting stronger from
day they just changed to names to hide.
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:20:18 -0700
prad p...@towardsfreedom.com wrote:
do people here have any thoughts on the two different licenses?
thank you everyone for your comments on this topic.
the links some of you provided were very interesting and helpful.
i had no idea there were so many licenses
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, prad wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:20:18 -0700
prad p...@towardsfreedom.com wrote:
do people here have any thoughts on the two different licenses?
thank you everyone for your comments on this topic.
the links some of you provided were very interesting and helpful.
21 matches
Mail list logo
