On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 08:42:13AM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
| > | 1. that's in the preamble, which establishes the spirit
| > | 2. 4 paragraphs below you read:
| > |
| > | The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
| > | modification follow.
| > |
| > | 3. later on you learn the "precise term" which is "under the terms of
this
| > | License"
| > |
| > | So no, you're wrong. Don't bother defending your point of view, it's a
waste
| > | of time to both of us, more to you who will write it. :)
| >
| > First you establish a spirit. Then you go on totally ignoring this
| > spirit in your "precise terms". Exactly why would you establish this
| > spirit in the first place ?
|
| You just get so rabid when things don't play like you want it to...
Where do I get rabid ? Which things don't play like I want it to ? I'm
not the one claiming you're wrong just because I say you are, I don't
ask you to not waste time replying because it would be senseless of
you to do so, since you're wrong anyway.
| I don't establish *anything*. It's in the preamble.
Your exact words are "that's in the preamble, which establishes the
spirit" (I left them in my reply so you can see for yourself). So the
spirit is established. I can play wordgames just as easily as you,
let's not go that route, OK ?
A spirit is established. Try to stick with the spirit, OK ?
| The spirit of the license is for everyone to have software freedom, not
just
| those who don't close up the source code. One of the ways it makes it so, is
to
| force passing on the same rights.
It suggests to pass on the rights you receive, which is a commendable
suggestion. As a user of BSD-licensed software I am totally in favour
of this suggestion. The BSD license just does not force you to do
this. And indeed, some companies take BSD licensed code and, in full
compliance with the license, dont share their changes. It may not be
the nice thing to do, but they have the right to do so. And since
these companies are not generally known for being Open Source or Free
Software advocates, there's nothing unexpected in this happening.
There are, on the other hand, companies that do take BSD licensed code
and share alike. Claudio Jeker posted an example not too long ago.
They're not forced to do this, but they do it anyway, in the spirit of
Free Software.
And the GPL doesn't force you to do this either. If you take GPL
licensed code, change it, and use it with your changes there is not a
single word in the license that forces you to set that software (with
the changes you made) free. Right up until the moment that you
distribute the changed version, you can keep the sourcecode to your
changes completely proprietary.
| You try to clinge on these expression as trying to validate the absurd
notion
| that it forces to maintain dual licensing. It's false. If you chose the GNU
GPL
| as the license, then the rights that must be passed on are those granted by
the
| GNU GPL. Responsabilities too.
Actually, I wasn't even talking about dual licensing issues. I was
talking about the GPL which says you should share code under with same
rights you got them. To me, this means "I get it with less
restrictions than GPL, so I must share it with less restrictions."
This is not in the BSD license, you can take the code and choose not
to share, as you've so eloquently pointed out (to us, who already
know). It's in the GPL. It may not be in the "precise terms", but it
is in the spirit of the license.
| > It's in the license, right ?
|
| The license is not to be read just at your convenience. There's more text,
and
| it clearly says "the precise terms follow". Don't ignore them when it's
more
| convenient to you.
I'm not ignoring it. I'm pointing out that it's in the license. The
spirit you were talking about is in the license. Like you are trying
to tell me not to ignore your "precise terms", I'm trying to tell you
not to ignore the spirit. I'm not ignoring the "precise terms", I'll
take the GPL'ed code and patch it without ever sharing a single bit of
my changes if I feel like it. But in the spirit of the GPL and the
spirit of the BSD license, I'll share my changes, under the same
license I received the code.
| > I may be wrong there, but *that* is so utterly, completely and totally
| > wrong that it is mindbogging why there is so much code released under
| > so much verbiage which we now call the GPL.
| >
| > "You are my brother in spirit, but i'll steal from you anyway and
| > totally ignore the spirit."
| >
| > You're not about free software.
|
| Of course not, I'm about the freedom of all users to run, study and modify,
| as well as distribute (modified or not). Software is not a human being, and
| Free Software is merely a tool to empower people.
Again, playing wordgames. I was insulting you. You claim to be an
advocate of free software, freedom to use software. By completely
ignoring the wishes of other free software developers you are not
living up to your claims. Don't claim to be 'about the freedom of all
users to run, study and modify as well as distribute' when you aren't
even willing to accept what the spirit of the GPL says you should do.
| You don't have any problems with people locking other people out of code,
but
| when it's to ensure everyone has access, except you because *you* don't want
to,
| then it's all bad. This is shallow, IMHO.
Shallow ? I think it's shallow to ignore the wishes of others *in the
name of "free software"*.
And again, the GPL perfectly allows me to lock others out of my
changes to whatever GPL-licensed code I get my fingers on. You don't
ensure this access you speak of by placing code under the GPL.
| Fortunately I value OpenBSD because it's Free Software with a lot of
technical
| merit, and not for words like yours. I even got the company I work at to
buy
| CD's (sometimes they don't).
That's amazing. I got the company I work for to make a substantial
donation. Whee, look at me, mom - I'm soooo cool.
| To finalise, the FSF has said it doesn't want anything to do with this
polemic,
| so I don't see the point in adding Richard to the cc except to make a fool
of
| yourself.
I added Richard because I feel that "his license" is misinterpreted.
Maybe by me, maybe by you. The one to best explain about the spirit of
the GPL would be the one who wrote it. If that makes a fool out of me,
I don't have a problem with that. But why then, would you leave him in
the CC: ?
Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
http://www.weirdnet.nl/
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
