Re: GPL version 4
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 08:38:35AM -0500, Richard M Stallman wrote: I don't think it is that bad - the intent is for the software to be freely available for *people* to use. It is actually about our freedom. You have it right. Copyleft licenses defend freedom for all users by stopping middlemen from stripping it away. Please don't spam the FreeBSD list with such propaganda. That's a personal request -- I don't pretend to speak for the entire list. -- Chad Perrin [ content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] Quoth Naguib Mahfouz: You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: GPL version 4
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:31:15 +0800, Morton Harrow said: I see with pain in my heart that the GPLv3 doesn't actually give the users of GPLv3 software the liberty and freedom the FSF has been fighting for. Instead they are forced to play by the strict set of terms the GPLv3 provides. You missed an important philosophical point. In Richard Stallman's world view, it isn't the user's freedoms that matter, it's the *software*s freedom. I don't think it is that bad - the intent is for the software to be freely available for *people* to use. It is actually about our freedom. regards Mark
Re: GPL version 4
All this GPL blah blah is a huge waste of time. It comes down to this; nearly everyone on this list thinks that the GPL is criminally stupid so stop trying to convince people here that it does not suck dog ass. Lets not have this retarded debate again, *we* know *you* are wrong, end of story. On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:12:40AM +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:31:15 +0800, Morton Harrow said: I see with pain in my heart that the GPLv3 doesn't actually give the users of GPLv3 software the liberty and freedom the FSF has been fighting for. Instead they are forced to play by the strict set of terms the GPLv3 provides. You missed an important philosophical point. In Richard Stallman's world view, it isn't the user's freedoms that matter, it's the *software*s freedom. I don't think it is that bad - the intent is for the software to be freely available for *people* to use. It is actually about our freedom. regards Mark
Re: GPL version 4
Marco Peereboom wrote: All this GPL blah blah is a huge waste of time. It comes down to this; nearly everyone on this list thinks that the GPL is criminally stupid so stop trying to convince people here that it does not suck dog ass. Lets not have this retarded debate again, *we* know *you* are wrong, end of story. LOL - sorry Marco, I was replying for the benefit of folks on the Ubuntu list ... I didn't notice the huge collection of *other* lists in the cc (I'm guessing you are *not* on the Ubuntu list). Of course, you are free to dislike the GPL in all its forms... regards Mark
Re: GPL version 4
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:51:53 -0500 Travers Buda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to present GPL version 10^100^100! (that's not an exclaimation, that's a factorial.) Over the years, clauses have been _removed_ from BSD-like licenses. The GPL keeps getting things _added_. *insert some sort of wisdom here about how this means BSD-like is better* Less is more. Dhu Reading (and actually understanding) the GPL could easily drive a sane man, with no drug abuse or family history of mental illness, completely insane due to its ever-increasing complexity. -- Travers Buda
Re: GPL version 4
Morton Harrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see with pain in my heart that the GPLv3 doesn't actually give the users of GPLv3 software the liberty and freedom the FSF has been fighting for. Instead they are forced to play by the strict set of terms the GPLv3 provides. For example, as a liberated computer user, I might like to incorporate a high quality piece of GPLv3 software in a commercial product, which for bussiness strategic reasons happens to be closed source software. But the GPLv3 denies my claim for this freedom to do this. Would you grant me the freedom to give away your commercial product for free or to incorporate it in my commercial product? Probably not. You'd instead grant me less freedom. The GPL protects me from this.
Re: GPL version 4
Would you grant me the freedom to give away your commercial product for free or to incorporate it in my commercial product? Probably not. You'd instead grant me less freedom. The GPL protects me from this. Except it doesn't. With or without the GPL, if he still makes his commercial product, you will still be unable to give it away or incorporate it in your commercial product. If he doesn't make it, that's just less choice for everyone. It may be a poorer product. It may cost him more to develop it. It may wind up not existing. But in no case will will you wind up with the freedom to give away his commercial product. So the GPL actually won't protect you from this at all. It will just result in him producing a poorer, more expensive, less compatible product -- or none at all. Either way, everyone else will have fewer (and/or poorer) choices. Everyone loses. Nobody wins. Note that had he been able to incorporate the GPL code in his commercial product, he may have passed bug fixes and improvements back to the GPL project. He would not have had to, of course, but if his product just uses a GPL component or library (that doesn't compete with the larger product), there's no reason for him not to. Everybody could have won. It's always possible he may instead elect to make a GPL'd project. This may allow him to produce a higher-quality product in less time. It may allow others to build on his work, and result in more freedom for everyone. He may make less money, but maybe not. The question of whether the everybody loses or the lots of people, maybe everybody, wins case is more common is an empiric one. I have seen an awful lot of everybody loses cases. I've seen very few everybody wins cases. DS
Re: GPL version 4
I'd like to present GPL version 10^100^100! (that's not an exclaimation, that's a factorial.) Over the years, clauses have been _removed_ from BSD-like licenses. The GPL keeps getting things _added_. *insert some sort of wisdom here about how this means BSD-like is better* Reading (and actually understanding) the GPL could easily drive a sane man, with no drug abuse or family history of mental illness, completely insane due to its ever-increasing complexity. -- Travers Buda
Re: GPL version 4
Morton Harrow wrote: Let me first introduce myself. My name is Morton Harrow, senior GNU/Linux consultant in the London metropolitan area. I have been around in the Open Source world since the early beginning. I am very happy with the spirit and efforts of the Free Software Foundation (FSF). First ten hits on google show his name is brand new. And there is no reference to specifically him anywhere else. In short, his identity is fake. In other words, he is a troll. # Han
Re: GPL version 4
2008/7/17 Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Morton Harrow wrote: Let me first introduce myself. My name is Morton Harrow, senior GNU/Linux consultant in the London metropolitan area. I have been around in the Open Source world since the early beginning. I am very happy with the spirit and efforts of the Free Software Foundation (FSF). First ten hits on google show his name is brand new. And there is no reference to specifically him anywhere else. In short, his identity is fake. In other words, he is a troll. Sufficiently clueless bragadocious pomposity is indistinguishable from trollery. --ropers
Re: GPL version 4
On Jul 16, 2008, Morton Harrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see with pain in my heart that the GPLv3 doesn't actually give the users of GPLv3 software the liberty and freedom the FSF has been fighting for. Instead they are forced to play by the strict set of terms the GPLv3 provides. For example, as a liberated computer user, I might like to incorporate a high quality piece of GPLv3 software in a commercial product, You can do that. There are lots of commercial products containing GPLv3 software out there. which for bussiness strategic reasons happens to be closed source software. But the GPLv3 denies my claim for this freedom to do this. You are mistaken in several levels. 1. Disrespecting others' freedoms is not a matter of freedom, it's a matter of power. 2. Nothing in the GPL prevents you from doing any of this. If there is something that prevents you from doing this, it's copyright law. You won't find prohibitions in the GPL. 3. If you're unable to combine third-party GPL-incompatible software with GPL software, it's because the third party prevented you from doing this, and you accepted it. Don't blame the GPL for your acceptance of such terms. 4. If you decide to not release your own code under the GPL, even though this stops you from releasing the program you wrote with help from other authors who chose the GPL, that's your decision. Don't blame the GPL for the consequences of your own decisions. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member B!SC) Libre! = http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Re: GPL version 4
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:21:28 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Jul 16, 2008, Morton Harrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blah, blah, blah... 8 snip loads of irrelevant shit. Can all you bastards take this discussion to somewhere where it is relevant instead of blindly CCing to all the addresses used by some troll. It is NOT pertinent to any OpenBSD, FreeBSD or NetBSD mailing list. Thanks to all the locals who trimmed their reply targets. Well done. Now let's starve the outsiders, please. They are oxygen thieves. NOTE WELL: My sender address is limited to getting mail from the list servers to which I am subscribed. Attempts to send replies to that address will result in your address being blacklisted automatically. Rod/ Me...a skeptic? I trust you have proof.
Re: GPL version 4
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, David Collier-Brown wrote: Morton Harrow wrote: Shouldn't GPL versions follow the bright example of TeX, and thus the next version be 3.1? To quote Fred Weigel, they should be 3 3.1 3.14 3.141 3.1415 3.14159 --dave -- David Collier-Brown| Always do right. This will gratify Sun Microsystems, Toronto | some people and astonish the rest [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Mark Twain (905) 943-1983, cell: (647) 833-9377, (800) 555-9786 x56583 bridge: (877) 385-4099 code: 506 9191# Nah. Should be GPL V-infinity That way there won't be any more. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.6.22.1 on an i686 machine (5588.29 BogoMips). My book : http://www.AbominableFirebug.com/ _ The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them. Thank you.
GPL version 4
Dear gentlemen (and included list-members), Let me first introduce myself. My name is Morton Harrow, senior GNU/Linux consultant in the London metropolitan area. I have been around in the Open Source world since the early beginning. I am very happy with the spirit and efforts of the Free Software Foundation (FSF). As the name mentions free, one would think this organisation embraces real freedom. I can't help but feel that the FSF has made a mistake with the release of the third version of the GPL (GPLv3). This license restricts the freedom and usage of open source software for governments, companies and end-users alike. Linking from other software which is not regarded by the FSF as free software, is not allowed by this license. I can't help but wonder if this is the freedom the FSF intensions. Real free should be that users are allowed link any software against GPL licensed software, without restrictions. But the current freedom restricts the spirit of Richard M. Stallman's original vision on a free world. We propose to release as soon as possible, version 4 of the General Public License. The GPL version 4 will accept every other license, accepted by the Open Source Initiative as open source. Corporate usage of GPL released software should be possible without restrictions. Linking from closed source software to GPLv4 software and libraries will be permitted. GPLv4 software can be shipped in (commercial) closed source software. Only this and the original authors need to be mentioned. Also, I believe the copyright of the FSF software should be transferred to the United Nations. As human knowledge belongs to the world. Our planned release date of GPLv4 is 15th September 2008. The first software to be released under the terms of this new license, will be a continuation of the stalled ReiserFS project. As the FSF headers allow software to be released under the terms of the GPLv2 or higher, we will prepare automatic relicensing of GPLv2 and GPLv3 software to the GPLv4. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. With kind regards, Morton Harrow = -- Powered by Outblaze
Re: GPL version 4
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Morton Harrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear gentlemen (and included list-members), Let me first introduce myself. My name is Morton Harrow, senior GNU/Linux Hmmm... something is telling me this message won't have a happy end. consultant in the London metropolitan area. I have been around in the Open Source world since the early beginning. I am very happy with the spirit and Oh, yeah! Since BSD tapes were distributed or earlier, when Ken Thompson was mailing UNIX source code and handwriting the package labels himself? efforts of the Free Software Foundation (FSF). Eeekkk!!! As the name mentions free , one would think this organisation embraces real freedom. I can't help but feel that the FSF has made a mistake with the release of the third version of the GPL (GPLv3). This license restricts the freedom and usage of open source software for governments, companies and end-users alike. Wow!!! Free software isn't free after all Stop the presses Put this story close to the Extra! Extra!! Moore law is still valid! headline. Linking from other software which is not regarded by the FSF as free software, is not allowed by this license. I can't help but wonder if this is the freedom the FSF intensions. Real free should be that users are allowed link any software against GPL licensed software, without restrictions. But the current freedom restricts the spirit of Richard M. Stallman's original vision on a free world. Now it's getting serious!!! We propose to release as soon as possible, version 4 of the General Public License. Hey!! I have a suggestion! This is so radically new!!! How about naming this version 4 of the GPL as something entirely different, like, say BSD??? I'm having a seizure right now. Can't keep the reading. snip
Re: GPL version 4
We have that already. /* * Copyright (c) CCYY YOUR NAME HERE [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. * * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES * WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF * MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR * ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN * ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF * OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. */ Call that GPL4 if you want. On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 02:06:15AM +0800, Morton Harrow wrote: Dear gentlemen (and included list-members), Let me first introduce myself. My name is Morton Harrow, senior GNU/Linux consultant in the London metropolitan area. I have been around in the Open Source world since the early beginning. I am very happy with the spirit and efforts of the Free Software Foundation (FSF). As the name mentions free, one would think this organisation embraces real freedom. I can't help but feel that the FSF has made a mistake with the release of the third version of the GPL (GPLv3). This license restricts the freedom and usage of open source software for governments, companies and end-users alike. Linking from other software which is not regarded by the FSF as free software, is not allowed by this license. I can't help but wonder if this is the freedom the FSF intensions. Real free should be that users are allowed link any software against GPL licensed software, without restrictions. But the current freedom restricts the spirit of Richard M. Stallman's original vision on a free world. We propose to release as soon as possible, version 4 of the General Public License. The GPL version 4 will accept every other license, accepted by the Open Source Initiative as open source. Corporate usage of GPL released software should be possible without restrictions. Linking from closed source software to GPLv4 software and libraries will be permitted. GPLv4 software can be shipped in (commercial) closed source software. Only this and the original authors need to be mentioned. Also, I believe the copyright of the FSF software should be transferred to the United Nations. As human knowledge belongs to the world. Our planned release date of GPLv4 is 15th September 2008. The first software to be released under the terms of this new license, will be a continuation of the stalled ReiserFS project. As the FSF headers allow software to be released under the terms of the GPLv2 or higher, we will prepare automatic relicensing of GPLv2 and GPLv3 software to the GPLv4. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. With kind regards, Morton Harrow = -- Powered by Outblaze
Re: GPL version 4
Shouldn't GPL versions follow the bright example of TeX, and thus the next version be 3.1?
Re: GPL version 4
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 08:06:23PM +, Miod Vallat wrote: Shouldn't GPL versions follow the bright example of TeX, and thus the next version be 3.1? That might converge in some sense. If the end is to be something like license.template, then we're talking about GPL version theta, where theta is at least strongly inaccessible^W^Wmeasureable.
Re: GPL version 4
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:31:15 +0800, Morton Harrow said: I see with pain in my heart that the GPLv3 doesn't actually give the users of GPLv3 software the liberty and freedom the FSF has been fighting for. Instead they are forced to play by the strict set of terms the GPLv3 provides. You missed an important philosophical point. In Richard Stallman's world view, it isn't the user's freedoms that matter, it's the *software*s freedom. For example, as a liberated computer user, I might like to incorporate a high quality piece of GPLv3 software in a commercial product, which for bussiness strategic reasons happens to be closed source software. But the GPLv3 denies my claim for this freedom to do this. Right, because doing so would impact the *software*s freedom. I fail to see how that strengthens me in a Free and Liberal Software World. Sometimes, it's not about you. [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: [gnu.org #367522] GPL version 4
Greetings All, At many of you have realized, this is a textbook troll [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) ]. For my part, I'm muting this thread and moving on. -- Cheers! --zak
Re: GPL version 4
- Original Message - From: Miod Vallat [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Morton Harrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: GPL version 4 Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:06:23 + Shouldn't GPL versions follow the bright example of TeX, and thus the next version be 3.1? Hi Miod, Most of the people who have replied seem to be missing the point. In addition to the announcement of the GPLv4, I was trying to discuss another point. The Free Software Foundation and their mission (Since 1985 we've been fighting for essential freedoms of computer users, please see http://www.fsf.org) are not in line with their GPLv3. I see with pain in my heart that the GPLv3 doesn't actually give the users of GPLv3 software the liberty and freedom the FSF has been fighting for. Instead they are forced to play by the strict set of terms the GPLv3 provides. For example, as a liberated computer user, I might like to incorporate a high quality piece of GPLv3 software in a commercial product, which for bussiness strategic reasons happens to be closed source software. But the GPLv3 denies my claim for this freedom to do this. I fail to see how that strengthens me in a Free and Liberal Software World. With kind regards, M.H. = -- Powered by Outblaze
Re: GPL version 4
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 05:31:15AM +0800, Morton Harrow wrote: In addition to the announcement of the GPLv4, I was trying to discuss another point. Piss off. 1) if you read the text of GPL, you will notice that later versions are explicitly limited to the versions published by FSF. Which makes your version rather irrelevant. 2) in case you've managed to miss it, Linux is *NOT* under v2 or later. 3) discussion of FSF, their mission, their ideals or their imaginary pet polka-dot goats does not belong here. 4) pain in your heart or in any other parts of your anatomy that might have been involved in the creation of that wankstain is, quite frankly, none of our concern.
Re: GPL version 4
Morton Harrow wrote: Shouldn't GPL versions follow the bright example of TeX, and thus the next version be 3.1? To quote Fred Weigel, they should be 3 3.1 3.14 3.141 3.1415 3.14159 --dave -- David Collier-Brown| Always do right. This will gratify Sun Microsystems, Toronto | some people and astonish the rest [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Mark Twain (905) 943-1983, cell: (647) 833-9377, (800) 555-9786 x56583 bridge: (877) 385-4099 code: 506 9191#
Re: GPL version 4
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 05:41:50PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You missed an important philosophical point. In Richard Stallman's world view, it isn't the user's freedoms that matter, it's the *software*s freedom. Oh, great. First poeple bend the term freedom (like FSF does), then they talk about the freedom of bits and bytes (software). Now let's start a free teapots campaign.
Re: GPL version 4
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Morton Harrow wrote: Dear gentlemen (and included list-members), Let me first introduce myself. My name is Morton Harrow, senior GNU/Linux consultant in the London metropolitan area. I have been around in the Open Source world since the early beginning. I am very happy with the spirit and efforts of the Free Software Foundation (FSF). As the name mentions free, one would think this organisation embraces real freedom. I can't help but feel that the FSF has made a mistake with the release of the third version of the GPL (GPLv3). This license restricts the freedom and usage of open source software for governments, companies and end-users alike. Linking from other software which is not regarded by the FSF as free software, is not allowed by this license. I can't help but wonder if this is the freedom the FSF intensions. Real free should be that users are allowed link any software against GPL licensed software, without restrictions. But the current freedom restricts the spirit of Richard M. Stallman's original vision on a free world. We propose to release as soon as possible, version 4 of the General Public License. The GPL version 4 will accept every other license, accepted by the Open Source Initiative as open source. Corporate usage of GPL released software should be possible without restrictions. Linking from closed source software to GPLv4 software and libraries will be permitted. GPLv4 software can be shipped in (commercial) closed source software. Only this and the original authors need to be mentioned. Also, I believe the copyright of the FSF software should be transferred to the United Nations. As human knowledge belongs to the world. Our planned release date of GPLv4 is 15th September 2008. The first software to be released under the terms of this new license, will be a continuation of the stalled ReiserFS project. As the FSF headers allow software to be released under the terms of the GPLv2 or higher, we will prepare automatic relicensing of GPLv2 and GPLv3 software to the GPLv4. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. With kind regards, Morton Harrow = -- Powered by Outblaze Funny, but it's not April, 1st. Cheers,
Re: GPL version 4
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Morton Harrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our planned release date of GPLv4 is 15th September 2008. That's scary. I'm staying indoors, shutting down any linux/windows pc's and not leaving the house that day.
Re: GPL version 4
Most of the people who have replied seem to be missing the point. I just don't know what you brought the discussion to this mailing list. If it is of serious concern to you, and if you haven't realized that he probably won't care (or agree), talk to rms about this. Either way, it's all your freedom of choice. But bringing the conversation here seemed pointless. Regards, ~Jason
Re: GPL version 4
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 05:31 +0800, Morton Harrow wrote: - Original Message - From: Miod Vallat [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Morton Harrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: GPL version 4 snip a high quality piece of GPLv3 software in a commercial product, which for bussiness strategic reasons happens to be closed source software. But the GPLv3 denies my claim for this freedom to do this. So you, as a liberated computer user, would like to, for business strategic reasons, remove liberty from other computer users.. I fail to see how that strengthens me in a Free and Liberal Software World. Oh wait but thats not all, you expect these liberal computer users to give you the chains which will then be used to hold them.. Oh and btw, for business strategic reasons, i now need to clean up my keyboard due to an unfortunate drink accident involving me splurting out my beverage all over my desktop when reading your post :) With kind regards, M.H. =
