Re: How about license-review@opensource.org?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gee, aren't we getting over-complicated? I think all we need is for Russ Nelson to create a second list. :) We're UNIX wookies... we like complicated nifty things. -- Signal 11, BOFH to the UF list and malign.net "Poor little evil fellow who asked for it!" - Dot
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Ean R . Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED]: We might as well start talking about your inability to walk correctly if you are going to work something like "Richard's personal hygine" into your discussions. Don't be crass. Okay.. I think we ought to draw this to a close. I think everybody's made their points (and then some), now let's move on... -- Signal 11, BOFH to the UF list and malign.net "Bother!" said Pooh as Cthulhu rose up and ate him.
Re: General Gaming Public License, GGPL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you already consulted an attorney who told you that this new license provision was necessary? I very strongly doubt that it's necessary on top of the generic "no warranty" claims already present in the GPL. Otherwise, I'd have to agree... the generic disclaimer of warranty would seem to cover this. -- Signal 11, BOFH to the UF list and malign.net "Let's get cracking!" -Dr. Fred
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
"Eric S. Raymond" wrote: That's right. If we did that, we would confuse and/or alienate everybody but the 5% of the population wired just like hackers. Which Is this necessarily a bad thing? 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? -- Signal 11, BOFH to the UF list and malign.net "Different Earths, identical mayhem." -- Professor Arturo
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
"Eric S. Raymond" wrote: If you're so smart, why aren't *you* the person the Wall Street Journal calls? Everybody, back up. There is no need to get personal here. I'm fed up with the inability of supposedly intelligent people to see past their idealism and their prejudices. Eric, that idealism which you are so quick to dismiss is what fired this whole movement up and is what continues to sustain it. Idealism is what makes life interesting! It can also touch off bitter wars of attrition (aka flaming). People live by their beliefs, and only very stubbornly give them up. It is also a hallmark of human reasoning to hold beliefs which are not logically self-consistent. Wake up, man. The percentage of people who can be reached by arguments that aren't founded in selfishness is *tiny*. You and I both happen to be among them -- but I know I'm in a minority, and you apparently don't. I have to disagree - that's a myth perpetuated by the mindset of american society. The idea of enlightened self-interest as the driving force behind all progress holds true for capitalism - not life in general. -- Signal 11, BOFH to the UF list and malign.net "Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it."-- Alex Schure
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
"Eric S. Raymond" wrote: I'm just pointing out that it makes ineffective communications tactics for reaching people who aren't like us -- that is XNTX on the Myers-Briggs grid. Well, about 25% of people are NT on the myers-briggs, if I recall correctly. That's not a small minority. And just because talking about ideals with people who are of the sensing / feeling type doesn't mean ideals are lost on them. To reach those people, you just need to be enthusiastic, energetic, charismatic(sp?), oh yeah.. and being witty helps too. I've spoken with many "normal" people on the idea of free software, linux, and that whole ball of wax. They DO understand, and it isn't hard to reach them. I mean.. it isn't hard to lay the facts out for them and connect the dots. I haven't failed yet to convince somebody that free software has more benefits to them, the end user, than it's commercial equivalents. But it is necessary to maintain some level of purity with the licensing styles of the open source / free software movement. I mean, the line has GOT to be drawn somewhere. Otherwise wierd problems crop up like the QPL's patching fiasco, or Apple's botched license. All these derivatives of the GPL, as well as licenses that almost-but-not-quite make the OSD only confuse the issue. We really do need to be united, as a community, on this issue. Unfortunately, it seems to be the one thing nobody can agree on. it. Take my job, please. I'm working on it. Unfortunately I still have 3 papers, a book, and several slashdot postings to go before I'm qualified. Oh yeah, and being only 19 I still need to finish college.[1] ;) -- Signal 11, BOFH to the UF list and malign.net "Got any more good ideas, Jim?" McCoy [1] This is also my official excuse incase I say something really stupid.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote: I believe more hackers would rather listen to Richard than to you, Eric. I disagree. I think both of them are worth listening to. One of them is trying to be practical, the other is trying to be ideological. There's nothing wrong with either approach, and some people will listen better to one than the other. But neither is "better" than the other. I don't believe it is possible to create a system that is 100% free of proprietary software (and be useable by a large number of people) - nonetheless it shouldn't stop people from striving to make that possible. We didn't believe we could land a man on the moon, nonetheless somebody tried - and we landed a man on the moon! Progress depends on unreasonable people. If Richard hadn't been so unreasonable in demanding free software and forming a grassroots movement to make that possible the more practical open source movement would never have left the launch pad. Whether open source will become the de facto standard, or act as a stepping stone to free software, I don't know. But I can tell you that this won't turn out the way anybody thought it would. That's the way social revolutions work - and don't kid yourself, this is a social revolution. -- Signal 11, BOFH to the UF list and malign.net Runs with scissors | http://www.malign.net
gpl backlash?
Thought I'd mention that the licensing has changed for "php4" aka zend. It was under the GPL, but now it appears to be under the QPL (just like kde). Seems to be a backlash against the GPL lately - slashdot has posted numerous articles on freebsd, which invariably say that "the gpl is evil (blah blah), and use freebsd because it's better. insert holy war here". Anybody else noticed this (and care to comment on it)? -- Signal 11
Re: new license to review
Mark Rafn wrote: You _CAN_ probably demand that all versions including modified ones with a different name include a custom header like: X-Server-Copyright: Based on WebFoo (c) 1999 Foo Inc. http://www.foo.com This would be no different than the requirement that interactive programs display GNU copyright when the output format isn't a necessary part of the program. Of course, it _IS_ an extra few dozen bytes with each request, and it's going to annoy some people. Those same people probably have never seen how much garbage headers IE4 sends out. ;) Seriously though, why not just have it print a version number / info line when you start the program? Many (most?) GNU programs do this. Also, http headers send the server name/version by default.. so modifying it to say (patched by [EMAIL PROTECTED]) after the version string wouldn't be hard. Would that break any programs? I have no problems with putting the copyright.. a) in the headers of the source b) short one-liners or "for licensing info, press F3" c) auto-generated "version strings" attached to output files d) message on startup. I'm more concerned with seeing some kind of "shareware" virus coming into the community. Very concerned. -- Signal 11
