Re: VENTURE CAPITAL
URGENT BUSINESS PROPOSAL
{snip}
That yahoo account will no longer be disturbing anyone ... pay it no mind.
d
--
+-+-+
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Conan! What is best in life? |
| Derek J. Balling | To crush your enemies, see them|
| |driven before you, and to hear the |
| |lamentation of their women! |
+-+-+
Re: OpenDesk.com License Proposal
At 11:28 AM 11/8/99 +1100, Andrew J Bromage wrote: 2) Commercial Use for Private Installations (e.g. installing OpenDesk on an Intranet) a) Modifications to Covered Code must be released under this license. The GPL does that. No it doesn't. If you install a modified version of a GPL'd product as a server product on an intranet, you are not obliged to release modifications, since you are not actually distributing anything, neither binaries nor source. The situation with OpenDesk (or, indeed, any server app system) is different, since you don't have to distribute anything in order to let people use it. The GPL doesn't help, since it only covers distribution of source, object code and binaries. Then you will run into the problem of having to run a CVS repository for your users. Reason: If I am working on code under this license, I may make 100 separate modifications, before I wind up with working code again. (e.g., make changes, find bugs, fix bugs, make more, fix more, etc., yada yada yada). Each "modification" - separately - is something which must be released. If I change line 100 in the first edit, before I make other changes, I have to make THAT (albeit bug-ridden or non-functional) code available before I can go fix it. 2.a. would need some rewriting before anyone would conceivably work on the code, IMHO. D
Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations
At 09:53 AM 10/17/99 -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: However, since credit is important to you, it is worth releasing a new version of the GPL which includes a statement of the terms that require distributors of GNU software to awknowledge that their distribution contains GNU software. I think the problem with this approach is that it appears to assume that anything that is released under the GPL is part of the GNU project. I don't believe that's the case. Correct. Just as Linux is released under the GPL and is not part of the GNU project. FWIW, I don't like the GPL and don't plan to ever release anything under it. But I'm trying to be objective. :-) I've got one piece of software under it, but I'm planning on switching in the next release.
Re: GNU License for Hardware
Independent Observation: It's really sad when a German has to give an American a lesson in American History. (.de is Germany right? I think so but am too lazy to look it up *g*) Angelo, you have it down 100% as to the causes and such of the Civil War (known in many places in the south as the "War of Northern Aggression" to this day). It frightens me in no small manner that Richard, who is very knowledgeable on some topics, would be so way off on American history. D Sorry, Richard, thats wrong. The war is called seccesion war. The reasons are very economical. E.G. the rich industrialized north fought against the poor agricultural south. Why? The south seperated. Thwy would had have the possibility to increase prices on food and cotten etc. to get a fairer exchange for the ibdustrial products they recieved. Nobody in the north was interested in slavery (excepted some brave men who gave shelter and possibility to escape). Nobody in the north was interested in the war either. But Lincoln was very good in public relations, he convinced people to fight for the slaves because he knew nobody would fight against the seperation very long. Well, to explain all the reasons, the political and economic circumstances would need about 30 pages ... I though you where an american and you knew that, are you not? Regards, Angelo - Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
Re: GNU License for Hardware
At 05:01 AM 10/15/99 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote: Derek Balling has made accusations against me here that call for refutation. Indeed. Calling this version of the GNU system "Linux", and not mentioning the name GNU, is treating the GNU Project with disrespect. We're the principal (though not the sole) developers of the system, and ordinary respect suggests you should call it by our name for it. If you wish to insist upon it, then you need to write that clause into the GPL. You have every right to desire that. You can desire a Lamborghini as well. But for you to truly stand behind your stance on freedom, you need to also accept that people are NOT going to do that. I've yet to see you willingly accept that a largish chunk of the Linux community, inclduing its founder, has no desire to call it "GNU/Linux". The freedom to treat anyone with disrespect is an essential part of freedom of speech. I strongly support freedom of speech, and therefore I never demand that people call the GNU system "GNU". Richard, that is an outright lie. I have watched you - with my own two eyes and my own two ears - berate a journalist at LWCE for calling it simply "Linux". However, I too have freedom of speech. When I see a person persistently treat the GNU Project with disrespect, I have the right to criticize or even reproach their conduct. I don't do this often, because usually I think it is more effective to stick to the issues and address them in a calm tone. But I have done it sometimes. Indeed. "Persistently" in this case must mean "When a journalist, in their first sentence, uses the word 'Linux'". If he urges one the use of GNU/Linux, but won't urge the use of (the theoretical) GNU/Solaris, even though the products are fundamentally identical, then that IS hypocrisy. The only thing in GNU/Linux which is Linux is the kernel. If you took the kernel of Solaris and made it work in the GNU system, that would be an analogous situation, and the term "GNU/Solaris-kernel" would be appropriate. (Not "GNU/Solaris", because Solaris is the whole system, not the kernel.) No. The only thing in Linux which is Linux is everything. The Linux community has taken the GNU Code -- we have that right because you explicitly granted it to us via the GPL. We have taken that and made it our own. That was one of the things you claimed you WANTED about Free Software, for people who needed code to be able to reuse it, modify it, incorporate it into their own projects, etc. As I said, the Linux community took you at your word, and has taken no end of shit for it afterwards. The Linux community read the GPL, we read your writings, and assumed that you would be openly supportive of our reusing of your code, bringing it into our own project, already named "Linux". As to GNU/Solaris vs GNU/Solaris-kernel... Someone from Sun would have to speak up to say by what name the Sun kernel is known. It could very well be that GNU/SunOS is where it would go (since uname still reports the kernel revision as SunOS even today, so perhaps that's the name that would need to be used). BUT we're not talking about taking the Sun kernel and making it work in the GNU system. This would be taking the Sun kernel and installing all the GNU stuff and leaving nothing but the Sun kernel behind. As I said, you don't change a kernel to allow applications to run, you port your applications to the kernel. If someone made the GNU apps all work and replace all the Sun apps, then by your logic, that would have to be GNU/(Solaris|SunOS|etc.). Is that correct? But if you just install some GNU packages on Solaris, that is not an analogous situation: much more remains of Solaris than just the kernel. This would not be GNU/Solaris-kernel. Agreed. But the original poster asked if they replaced EVERYTHING with GNU software, which is when you said you would not support that naming. Which is, among other ludicrous statements, what started this thread. D
Re: GNU License for Hardware
At 05:02 AM 10/15/99 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote: The GNU GPL does not make any legal requirements about what name you can call your system if you include a GNU program in it. I think it would be wrong to try to impose such a requirement by legal force. It is good that you recognize such. Therefore, people have a legal right to take the whole GNU system, replace one component such as the kernel (or even make no change at all), and call it some other name which does not include "GNU". The FSF and other copyright holders of GNU programs cannot sue you for doing this. Nor should they even desire to, if they truly believe in Freedom. One thing to keep in mind though, is that, if Linus were a dick, he could have a field day with the FSF for attempting to dilute the Linux trademark he owns. We all know that Linus is NOT a dick though, so this is not even close to happening. But while that conduct is legal, that does not make it right and good. Part of the respect that people normally give to the developers of a software package is using the name they gave it. If you make a variant of the GNU system, you don't legally have to call it "GNU", but it is rather unfriendly if you don't. Linux never tries to be a variant of the GNU system. You insist on calling it that, but in many ways Linux simply tries to be a "best of breed" system. In many cases that is GNU software, in others it isn't. One variant of Linux (Debian) actively tries to be a GNU system, and they call themselves that - that is their choice. They could take Linux and call it something else if they wanted to, really. But the core developers of Linux do not try to make it a GNU system, and for you to attempt to impose that name upon them is regretful. Since the BSD advertising requirement has been mentioned, I should point out that it too makes no legal requirement about what name you can call your system if you include some BSD software. As regards this particular issue, the old BSD license is no different from the GNU GPL. But it would at least force people to give your ego the massaging it needs by leaving your (theoretical) GNU Advertising Clause in there. (I've called the BSD advertising requirement "obnoxious", but I don't call it evil. I have asked people to avoid it because of practical problems it causes. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html.) But if the GPL had it, then any GNU software would have to be recognized as such somewhere. That would suit your desires just fine, it would seem. D
Re: GNU License for Hardware
At 11:18 AM 10/14/99 -0400, John Cowan wrote: "What RMS wants" != "what RMS thinks he has the right to demand". I hear RMS urging people to use the name GNU/Linux, not demanding that they do so, still less claiming that he has a right to demand that they do so. I have seen him personally with my own eyes demand it of people. I saw him rip into a member of the press for being "ignorant" when he referred to Linux as Linux. Either you have to defend their right to take that code and name it what they will, or you have to admit to a harsh difference between your published philosophy and your actions. Defending someone's right to do X is not the same as urging them to do X, nor is it inconsistent with urging them not to. I will defend your right to create a fork of Emacs called "eat-my-shorts", but I will also urge you not to do it. If he urges one the use of GNU/Linux, but won't urge the use of (the theoretical) GNU/Solaris, even though the products are fundamentally identical, then that IS hypocrisy. D
Re: license-review mailing list
At 07:19 PM 9/22/99 -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote: I probably wouldn't join it, for fear of having a discussion about a license suddenly trigger someone's hot button. I for one have tried to refrain from off-topic things here recently, and I do encourage others to do so, but I agree that discussion of license conformance necessarily entails some degree of philosophy discussions. If we are taking votes on this topic, let me concur that after careful consideration -- and even speaking out that maybe a second list was necessary -- I'd have to conclude that I agree with Brian completely. Perhaps this is just a matter that potential licensees need to be exposed to as well -- that a certain indoctrination by learning and being well-versed in the philosophies behind (Open Source|Free Software) is part of the process of crafting an Open Source license. D
Re: Corel: No internal exemption in GPL
At 06:20 AM 9/23/99 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They did raise the fact that they found the GPL vague on some issues, like "what is distribution". It's not vague to me but then I have years of experience in being talmudic about the GPL. But I will raise with Stallman the fact that the GPL could use a definitions appendix. Last time I raised that issue, he said something like he didn't want to do that and then have them be defined later in copyright law in a way that would conflict with the GPL. That seems reasonable, but I will raise the issue again. Considering RMS subscribes to this list (I think)... it could be argued you just did raise the issue again... :) D
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
At 11:48 AM 8/30/1999 -0500, Signal 11 wrote: Maybe his actions speak louder than his words. Maybe he doesn't have to try to convince the other 99% of the population - it ought to be immediately obvious of the superiority of free software /based only on the result/. No explanation necessary. Maybe the Amiga should have won the "war" because it was a technically superior platform, which was immediately obvious to anyone who looked at the facts. That theory that "The best product always wins" doesn't hold up in the real world. You need to be the best /and convince people of that fact/... You can have the best mousetrap in the world... if the guys who make decisions think it sucks, it doesn't get deployed.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Realistically, the major contributors of open source have mostly been hackers. Would there be a significant reduction in the proliferation and quality of free software if linux had not gone corporate? Quality : No, other than that which is created by the talent and resources brought to the table by "corporate" types. Proliferation: Absolutely there would be a dramatic difference. Two years ago, to bring a Linux server into an organization that was primarily, say, Windows, was a nightmarish ordeal. Been there, done that. Now, with corporate america "aware" at least of Linux, and its benefits, and it having some associated clout, it is far easier for Joe Hacker to convince his boss that "Hey you should replace that NT server with a Linux box..."
