David Bateman wrote: >Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: >> This is my feeling on the matter. >> >> The original post suggests that it is the CLN developer who requested >> that their software not be bundled with VC++ libraries. I think we >> should respect their wishes.
I'm all for respecting their wishes, my intention is and never was not respect them. However, I object to some people 'hijacking' GPL or any other license that is not their own. *If* they differ from the 'correct' or common interpretation of a generic license they should say so *in the license* and not put their own spin on the interpretation. >>If we exclude their software from the >> bundle, we are not taking a legal position, or saying that we agree with >> the developer. We are merely graciously agreeing to the developer's wishes. >> I agree with that. >> I personally disagree with the CLN developer, and I think that their >> position on this matter hurts them, and hurts the open-source movement >> as a whole. But that is not my call to make. Agree with that too. >> >> If the license clearly allowed the CLN binaries to be bundled with VC++ >> libraries, then I think we would be in a good place to go against the >> wishes of the CLN developer. But given that reasonable people can >> disagree with the interpretation, and in the absence of any arbitrating >> ruling, I think we need to give in to the CLN developer's request. We'll I think we should give in the interest of common good and the bigger picture, but I see no absolute *need* to do that. >> >> I think the only recourse is to politely ask the CLN developer to change >> his mind. But if he/she doesn't, we should live with it. >> >> >I kind off agree that we should respect a developers position about the >use of their code even if we disagree with the legal position, except >that the CLN developers position essentially means that no Octave VC++ >installer is possible as the user would be required to download the >additional components themselves.... So accepting the CLN's developers >position has ramifications beyond the octave symbolic package... Indeed, their interpretation would, if allowed to spread, be a major set back for Open Source movement by making it much too difficult for average user to use Free software and alienating them from it. What Open Source needs most is popularity, without sacrifying the essential Freedom. > So >getting the FSF's position is important. Indeed. I hope they clarify their position, although, legally speaking I do not think they are a party to the agreement between CLN developers and users. cheers Kusti ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and around Java (TM) technology - register by April 22, and save $200 on the JavaOne (SM) conference, June 2-5, 2009, San Francisco. 300 plus technical and hands-on sessions. Register today. Use priority code J9JMT32. http://p.sf.net/sfu/p _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
