Hi! Sorry for the latish response.
On Friday 11 Dec 2009 14:38:50 Shai Berger wrote: > On Friday 11 December 2009, Shlomi Fish wrote: > > On Friday 11 Dec 2009 14:01:11 Shai Berger wrote: > > > Shlomi, > > > > > > Why do you bother those of us who are not subscribed to Linux-IL with > > > an argument for which you have received (what appears to be) a > > > satisfactory answer in the original forum -- > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/linux...@cs.huji.ac.il/msg57007.html ? > > > > 1. It's more on-topic here. > > Granted. > OK. > > 2. I didn't find the answer satisfactory - essentially Tzafrir said > > "everyone can interpret the GPL as he sees fits" and there will be Chaos > > across the land. > > No, he said that earlier. What he said this time was that everyone can > interpret *any* license as they see fit. The intelligent reader may be > expected to infer the missing "and be laughed out of court". Actually, > there's no need for that. OK. > > For the actual matter at stake, it is my (non-lawyer) opinion that their > interpretation is no more valid than an interpretation of the 3-clause BSD > license that says the copyright holder is owed money for use of the > program. Thanks for the support. > > One more point about your argument there: You present it as if it were an > attack on the {L,}GPL for invoking the undefined, "vague" notion of derived > work. But what you end up with -- "just use a permissive license" -- is an > attack on copyleft itself. That is you do not attack the instrument at > hand, but the intention in its use. That is fine, if you're upfront about > it. Where do you see that I ended up with "just use a permissive licence"? Naturally, I prefer to use the X11 Licence for my software, but I can accept the fact that some people would prefer to use strong copyleft or weak copyleft licences instead. However, I think their most common manifestations as the GPL and the LGPL are too political, complicated, hard-to-understand, etc. that I think they do a dis-service to the concept of copyleft. In my essay, I thought that the Sleepy Cat Licence is a good substitute to the GPL, but Migo said the wording there was disputable and had too little legal teeth for serious uses, and I couldn't find any GPLv2/GPLv3-compatible licence that is weak copyleft. Migo did point me to: http://snk.tuxfamily.org/web/2007-05-02-copyleft-variation-of-mit-license.html Which is a weak copyleft licence that aims to be simple, but I'm not sure if it was accepted yet. So it's an unresolved problem. > > > > One thing contributing to the strength of Tzafrir's comments there is > > > that in three weeks, you never bothered to refute them. Instead, you > > > chose to simply repeat your claims to a different forum. Why? > > > > See above. > > The above answers "why you repeated your claims to a different forum", not > "why did you fail to refute the counter argument" -- except, perhaps, that > part of that message somehow escaped your attention. > OK. Regards, Shlomi Fish > > Thanks (not!) for top-posting. > > I stand corrected. I should have indeed removed the part of your message I > was not responding directly to. Thanks for fixing that for me. > > - Shai. > _______________________________________________ > Discussions mailing list > Discussions@hamakor.org.il > http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussions > -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ Why I Love Perl - http://shlom.in/joy-of-perl Bzr is slower than Subversion in combination with Sourceforge. ( By: http://dazjorz.com/ ) _______________________________________________ Discussions mailing list Discussions@hamakor.org.il http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussions
