Richard Stallman wrote:
You *can't relicense* code under your choice without the author consent
period!
That BSD license gives permission for almost any kind of use,
including distributing the code under other licenses. The only
requirement is not to remove the BSD license statement itself.
I have to assume my understanding of the language is failing me then.
The BSD license is very simple, much shorter then the GPL.
If I am publishing software under a BSD license, I don't see *anywhere*
in it where I would have granted you the right to modify my license of
choice *under other licenses* that you sir might want to pick *without*
my explicit consent.
Rights not given away, or to you explicitly, are not granted, and as
such, are still reserved. Or you may have a different definition for
that too?
Yes, I do grant you almost everything! *BUT NOT* the right to change my
license of choice!
Rights not granted can't be taken away!
Yes, I grant you the right to use my software in any application you may
write and make money with, but I *DO NOT* grant you the right to modify
my license in any ways. See bellow if I would publish this:
/*
* Copyright (c) 2007 Daniel Ouellet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*
* Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
* purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the
* above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
* all copies.
*
* THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL
* WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED
* WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL
* THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR
* CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM
* LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
* NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN
* CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
*/
You can't change it and make it GPL, nor should you either, just because
you want to do so!
If you feel my software is worth shit to you, then great and as such you
should appreciate it for what it is *FREE SOFTWARE* and as a gesture of
respect, should you find bugs in it and/or improvement to it, could send
them back, so that it can improve what I wrote in the first place as a
token of respect and appreciation of my work and more importantly keep
it *FREE SOFTWARE*.
You however, have no obligation to do so, should you choose not to
return the favor I extended to you in all *FREEDOM* without oppression
and such, if you really stand where your mouth is, should never sir try
to then limit the *FREEDOM of the *FREE SOFTWARE* I publish and given
you in also all *FREEDOM* in any ways as it would be in line with what
you try to convince me, is your life long goal.
Or are you saying that you would exercise what appear to be your self
proclaim given right to steel under your own license of choice, and in
doing so, appointing yourself judge and jury of a *FREEDOM* cause,
disregarding my work and license, and should I say restrict my own
*FREEDOM* and replace it for your definition of *FREEDOM*?
I already granted you almost everything and you would go as far as
steeling from me what I have *freely* given you in total *FREEDOM* to
exclude me from it under a GPL restrictive license that would forbid me
from that point on to benefit from improvement on my own work and to
validate my *FREEDOM* to offer *FREE* as I see fit improvement to it?
Yes, you have no obligation to do so, however, the end result is
restricting my *FREEDOM* never the less and make what was totally *FREE*
now questionable.
Sir, what kind of *FREEDOM* are you fighting for I might asked?
It appear to be Your *FREEDOM* to steel others *FREE* given work?
So, is your real meaning of "RMS" really mean at large that every *FREE
SOFTWARE* publish by any programmer on the Internet under any license
what so ever needs to become:
*Relicense My Software* distribution and copy in all cases?
^ ^ ^
And doing so at any cost discarding the *FREEDOM* and rights of the
author in the process?
I can't equal your actions and advocacy to any kind of *FREEDOM* sir!
It just doesn't fit. I can only explain it by my lack and understanding
of the language. That's the only explication I can come up with. I guess
as there isn't any other possibility here that is logical to me. Or may
be, could it be out of deliberate deceiving actions? I can't say.
Reducing *FREEDOM* and a *FREE SOFTWARE* already given away is not
promoting *FREEDOM* or *FREE SOFTWARE*. Regardless of may understanding
of the language, or lack there of, it can't mean that, can it?
I start myself to question why some great programmer would even consider
publishing under GPL, under this leading position of the GPL leader and
what appear to be convention to steel as they would under your rules
loose rights to their own work. Are they really realizing the *FREEDOM*
they are loosing or giving away without knowing it then? I do not know
and can't answer that question. But a fair one to ask I would say.
I understand the spirit of the license, or the goal it was suppose to be
use, but you Sir are really putting a new spin on it and really start to
put into light what you are really after by trying to have everyone
using and forcefully changing every license to GPL. You are not really
interested in *FREEDOM* or *FREE SOFTWARE* but looks like and appear to
be more like the meaning of GPLv3 to be the "Greatest Plagiarism
License* Vendetta 3 ever conceal.
I don't really know, but it would appear to be as such. I sure hope not
right?
Another message raised the question of what relicensing means and
whether that involves changes to the code. When I say "relicensing" I
mean distributing the code with another license applied. That doesn't
mean deleting the old license.
What was I thinking when I asked that question, or what was I hoping
for? I must have been drunk thinking that it would be different.
Just as I expected you would do. You can't shoot straight. Sure appear
that you always try to be devious aren't you? I asked a strait up,
direct, simple, and clear question, and you try to navigate your way out
of it that suit your needs at that moment that you pick on your own time
table.
If I may suggest, I very strongly believe you would have been a great
Lawyer, with how easy you can twist at your will the meaning of words,
you would have been extremely successful, no questions there, and may be
even the best ever, in contrast to be a defender of *Free Software*.
With all due respect sir, your actions do not fit with your expression.
Richard, I have to admit and give you credit as well as concede you
total victory on one thing and one thing only.
There is no question in my mind that you sir, have the gift of words and
find ways to twist them as you see fit. Congratulations!
I, on the other end, can't claim that gift. You sir have a gift with
words that I can't equal nor aspire to ever achieve! This is a great
power and gift you have and I do have to admire this in you, as well as
everyone else should too. It is sad to see it miss use however. I
couldn't possibly twist my writing as such as be able to do it and fell
comfortable do so.
See, my best T-Shirt that I am even wearing now, writing this email, was
given to me by my son and it say:
"Bad spellers of the world, UNTIE!
With the word "UNTIE" underline.
See, I didn't get it at first. (;>
But is is very funny and right to the point in my case anyway.
At a minimum, I know my weakness and I am at peace with it. I also know
and have to admit, my son of 12 years old can catch many mistakes in my
English, that makes my skills with the language at a level below a 12
years old I suppose, witch I am not necessary proud of, but totally at
peace with never the less. I can communicate, understand and be
understood by others and say what I mean. On the other end it looks like
you sir can't do that as efficiently. That bare the question as to what
level you might be? Very sad, I wish you would use your gift in a better
matter.
I am a pretty strait shooter and have been for years. And when I am
wrong, I have no problem saying so, even publically. I see no shame in
it nor as a weakness, but as a straight. It define where one stand and
sure doesn't remove anything from who I am.
On the other end, you sir, looks like you can't play straight and answer
simple direct question, without the needs to change their meaning and
answers at each turn.
But, when cut red handed, try to redefine the meaning of words to make
them what you need them to be at the time you use them instead of
admitting a mistake or wrong doing.
What is even more sad is that it been shown time and time again, many
are so confuse to your meaning that they fell the needs to take your
defense and try to make excuse for you, as well as trying to explain or
extrapolate what may have been your meaning to others on what you may
have said in equally devious ways. A very sad state of affairs I have to
say. There is nothing wrong to be strait and say what we mean, and mean
what we say. Both things that we will never know in your case I guess.
Many years ago, when I started to be expose to *FREE SOFTWARE*, I
started to see your name as an example of what *FREEDOM* and *FREE
SOFTWARE* was suppose to be, or what I guess it was suppose to aspire to
anyway. Didn't take to long to realize how wrong was I and how totally
mistaken and miss lead was I.
Don't get me wrong here. I applause what you were trying to do and your
convictions as well at the start anyway and it gives you great power and
great visibility and a lots of follower as well. However, all that power
looks like to me as it appear to be miss use. You are destroying the
legacy you may have put in history for decade to come Sir. But you must
know what you are doing I suppose.
The concept of relicensing does not imply changing or adding code, and
the legality of relicensing doesn't depend on changing or adding code.
However, I would urge people to relicense only if they make very big
changes. If they make lesser changes, it is better to contribute them
to the original project, and if they make no changes, relicensing is
just silly (in most cases).
Honestly Richard, I read this part of your email no less then 10 times!
Specially this part:
"The concept of relicensing does not imply changing or adding code, and
the legality of relicensing doesn't depend on changing or adding code."
I didn't give you that right, so you do not have it period!
I have to concede victory to you here however, and bow to you sir. I
can't in all honesty understand what you are saying or trying to say in
any convoluted way you are trying to make it appear. My mind is not that
twisted.
I do not have the gift of words like you obviously do, to argue with you
on this. I can't imagine make a foul of myself trying either. As much as
I want to and try to, with my proven to me by my 12 years old kid, that
my English language skills are not at pair with yours by any mean, to be
able to go down to the same devious level as you have, with as much
flexibility as you can do so. Nor can I redefine the dictionary in ways
to make every words in it, mean what ever I choose them to mean when I
use then as easy as you cleverly have proven to be capable of doing at
will. I just can't.
You Sir, I have no dough about it, would be very successful to no end at
sailing refrigerator in the north pool to Inuit in Canada in the middle
of the winter convincing them that to keep their meat frozen, they need
your freezer, instead of just having their meat at 20 below zero
already, figure of speech obviously.
I am obviously too strait, direct and forth coming to be able to do that
with you and as such, I bow to you with all due respect to you and your
meaning of the English language. It is obvious to me now, that no matter
how direct, simple and clear I may try to be, there is no way, will I
ever make any sense to you and definitely not out of your answers.
So, Richard with all due respect. I bow to you and will leave the stage
left (*suppose to be the FREEDOM and FREE SOFTWARE side* ) to your
majesty and let others that may have the tools needed to understand your
usage of words.
In any case, the words of the license are very simple and clear to me, I
can't possibly subscribe to your interpretation of them. That would go
against all I learn in school.
You win the argument with me. I can't go down and argue to your level,
but make no mistakes about it. I NO NOT agree with your interpretation
of it in any case.
I just don't have the tools to make you understand it.
Richard, you are very good at what you do, what ever your end goal might
be, however, I fear you are miss using your gift and power. I sure hope
for you it's wort your effort!
With all due respect.
Best regards,
Daniel
