Re: Has open software gone nuts?
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 13:59, Collins Richey wrote: What I read from this is an interpretation of the GPL that could loosely be expressed as what is mine is mine, what is yours is also mine. Oh dear... I read it as throwing a roadblock in front of a company who has attempted to adopt the approach: what's mine is mine, and whats *ours* I will also make mine when I want it to be. -- burns ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Has open software gone nuts?
http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html This type of legal-schmegal wrangling is what we expect from SCO and its brethren. It smells no better when it comes from OSS. -- Collins Richey - Denver Area if you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Has open software gone nuts?
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Collins Richey wrote: http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html This type of legal-schmegal wrangling is what we expect from SCO and its brethren. It smells no better when it comes from OSS. I see nothing wrong with it. How would you propose that the GPL be enforced? -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Has open software gone nuts?
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:10:36 -0400 (EDT) Net Llama! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Collins Richey wrote: http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html This type of legal-schmegal wrangling is what we expect from SCO and its brethren. It smells no better when it comes from OSS. I see nothing wrong with it. How would you propose that the GPL be enforced? What I read from this is an interpretation of the GPL that could loosely be expressed as what is mine is mine, what is yours is also mine. I personally don't believe that such an interpretation has any real benefit, although I'm certain that proponents of the GPL might disagree. -- Collins Richey - Denver Area if you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Has open software gone nuts?
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Collins Richey wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:10:36 -0400 (EDT) Net Llama! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Collins Richey wrote: http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html This type of legal-schmegal wrangling is what we expect from SCO and its brethren. It smells no better when it comes from OSS. I see nothing wrong with it. How would you propose that the GPL be enforced? What I read from this is an interpretation of the GPL that could loosely be expressed as what is mine is mine, what is yours is also mine. I personally don't believe that such an interpretation has any real benefit, although I'm certain that proponents of the GPL might disagree. There is no interpretation. The GPL clearly explicitly requires that you release the source for your work, and all derrivitive works. The FSF is enforcing that requirement. I'll ask again, how would you propose that the GPL be enforced, if not via: 0) Polite requests, then if ignored 1) Less polite requests, then if still ignored 2) Legal action -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Has open software gone nuts?
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:59:18 -0600 Collins Richey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:10:36 -0400 (EDT) Net Llama! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Collins Richey wrote: http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html This type of legal-schmegal wrangling is what we expect from SCO and its brethren. It smells no better when it comes from OSS. I see nothing wrong with it. How would you propose that the GPL be enforced? What I read from this is an interpretation of the GPL that could loosely be expressed as what is mine is mine, what is yours is also mine. I personally don't believe that such an interpretation has any real benefit, although I'm certain that proponents of the GPL might disagree. No. The GPL simply means that if you distribute software that I wrote or a derivative thereof, you must distribute it under the GPL. If you don't want to, then don't use my code. Write your own. At least the GPL gives you the choice. Think about it. Do you want to spend your time writing a piece of software, distribute it along with the source code so that others can improve upon it, and have someone steal it and close the source. Bill ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Has open software gone nuts?
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:34:16 -0400 (EDT) Net Llama! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no interpretation. The GPL clearly explicitly requires that you release the source for your work, and all derrivitive works. The FSF is enforcing that requirement. I'll ask again, how would you propose that the GPL be enforced, if not via: 0) Polite requests, then if ignored 1) Less polite requests, then if still ignored 2) Legal action Right. If anyone takes the GPL source they also take the licence. Don't like the GPL? Don't use GPL'd software. Actually, some people winding up this situation, (vide Subject) when clearly it is at a reasonable, and debated level, is not helpful to the OSS and FSF positions. It helps create quotable internal squabbles arguments for those whose livelihoods depend on M$ continued monopoly of the market* ( *US government agreed). Terence ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Has open software gone nuts?
Collins Richey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:38:07 -0600 http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html This type of legal-schmegal wrangling is what we expect from SCO and its brethren. It smells no better when it comes from OSS. If copyrights are not enforced the courts rule that they are not enforcable. The GPL is very clear that if you choose to use GPL code, you must release your changes, with source, to the general community. You can always choose to write your own. This does have bearing on the SCO circus. If the GPL is not defended, some elements of the case get even more muddy and linux could lose more than just the FUD war. -- Alma ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Has open software gone nuts?
Quoth Collins Richey: http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html This type of legal-schmegal wrangling is what we expect from SCO and its brethren. It smells no better when it comes from OSS. Naturally, you're reading a slanted article from a magazine that doesn't understand the issues. Linksys and Broadcom tried to pull a fast one, got caught, and now are engaging in spin control via the media. Kurt -- Your lucky number is 3552664958674928. Watch for it everywhere. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Has open software gone nuts?
Collins Richey wrote: http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html This type of legal-schmegal wrangling is what we expect from SCO and its brethren. It smells no better when it comes from OSS. Business's ultimate goal is to be a monopoly in the particular area they inhabit and to have that monopoly requires that you have exclusive access to whatever your product / idea is and that no one can duplicate your work. If you are a programmer then you (generally) get paid to code. Companies want that `one time' investment to be multiplied by a large return. So letting the code out isn't going to keep people locked in. Hence the general incompatibility with GPL'd software. So reading this article I noticed that the writer was trying to bias the readers thinking toward `the FSF uses the GPL to dredge for hush money'. However at no point do we see the similar levels of legal maneuvering, trickery and mischief at law that characterise the SCO case. The GPL, in my opinion, seeks to dislodge the culture of greed that large multi-national companies pursue, and to allow the technology age to be available to 3rd world and under priviledged people no matter what nation they exist in. However the cost is, as stated in the article, that if you build on the GPL then it's an open house. -- James McDonald Singleton Australia 61+ (0)2 65712401 61+ 0428 320 219 When you're not looking at it, this fortune is written in FORTRAN. Linux 2.4.22 #1 Mon Sep 1 20:03:11 EST 2003 athlon i386 GNU/Linux 10:10:00 up 11 days, 8:11, 1 user, load average: 2.16, 2.15, 1.77 ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
