On 16 Oct 2003 at 3:31, Phoebus R. Dokos (Φοίβος Ρ. Ντό wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:46:55 +0200, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You fail to see the argument. Linux (or anything else) if its license is > already a Free Software License by definition it cannot be turned into > something that is NOT Free Software. > On the other hand if something is NOT Free Software it CAN be turned into > Free Software (with the provision that it this cannot be revoked as it > defeats the term). > Therefore you can move from a closed to a Free Software license but not > vice versa. Especially not when the software that you are porting is > already covered by a F.S. license.
Well that's exactly my argument. Their licence cn't be turned into this one and this one not into theirs. So why is ours the bad guy and not theirs? > > This is the same argument than the one before. > > You take something that has its own licence and ask that SMSQ/E be > > changed to accomodate it. > > But I am not asking for anything. I am merely making a point why SMSQ/E is > for some reasons unsuitable at times for software development by > proponents of the Free Software idea. But this is more of the same. They want to work (only) under that licence, so ours must be changed. I challenge that basic asuumption. Let them change and accept our point of view. (...) > > I'll also presume that they did not approach, for whatever reason, the > > original > > author, or whoever maintains the source code, to have their "patches" > > incorporated into the software. > > I assume that they have no intention to do so at all as they both disagree > with the current license as it it's more like the carrot and the stick > kind of thing... OK, that doesn't change a thing (...) > > That is incorrect. If you had NO access to the sources of the original > software then your patch is legal regardless of what it does and if it > affects the system software. Otherwise half of the globe with say new > explorer replacements for windows (in effect patches) or third party bug > fixes to shell.dll for example (again WIndows) would be illegal, but they > arent :-) I beg to differ. Are you saying these things patch the windows executable code? Not! (...) > It did but the point I was making is that all the discussions for the past > year on the conditions that the license makes plus the patching of SMSQ/E > etc, lead anybody with an average brain like myself to think that is > prohibited by the license to patch the software externally And distribute > the patch commercially or as a free software. Well, sorry but have you actually read the licence itself? If a passage there sn't clear, I'd be willing to look at it ! (and the question of agents won't be in there because it hasn't anything to do with it). (...) > > Not to me, if I understood your example correctly. > > See above. Indeed (...) > No, not necessarily, but at least IMHO for it to BE free software and to > fullfil to the maximum the idea of multiple input to the sources it should > be. Of course I cannot tell you what to do (or disrespect the license in > any case) but nonetheless it is a precondition to free software. The whole > post was actually the reply to your previous comment that more or less > SMSQ/E is Free Software. My position is that it is not. If Internet access is a precondition to that, then, indeed, it isn't. Remember though, there was already free software even before the Internet existed. (..) > Hehe I wish it would. I would be willing to change my name as well :-) > Regardless of that there are several m68k groups out there with many many > members that could be interested. But for many people the hassle of > writing even an email, and wait just takes the fun out of it :-) Oh, but they then would be active contributors? (...) > > I have seen an SMSQ/E version for the QXL I sent running under Linux > myself. Unfortunately this version is "unofficial". The person that did it > has strong opinions for Free Software himself and he will not release any > changes or even submit them to the tree. OK, that is too bad. > Beside that however I think that in order to see if I am right, we have to > release it through the net. Even for the heck of it... you never know > until you try as my dad always told me :-) Sure, but then it will be too late . > Depends. From very to not at all. That doesn't change the fact that a > maintained *something* looks a lot better than an *unmaintained* other > thing. Well and if you ask me for the source code and get it by mail, this is not proof of it being maintained, of course. > To close, all my responses to this thread (which I think is a very nice > thread and it was extremely civilised with a lot of nice and constructive > disagreement btw) yes, aren't we just the league of extraordinary gentlemen here? > are not meant to instruct ANYONE what to do. I don't think anybody would have construed it as such. > I cannot > tell nobody what to do with their lives let alone their software. Again I > repeat why things may not go as well as they should in the area of SMSQ/E > and why I think that it would be better if such and such changes were > made. But I am only voicing my opinion. Of course I will continue selling > SMSQ/E and even release (if accepted) the changes I mentioned at an > earlier email, but that's just my choice :-) and a good one. (Sorry, couldn't resist that.) All the best, Wolfgang
