Anthony Towns writes:
> > Of course, now I need to understand why you think the
> > forced-disclosure requirement is reasonable and the tax-return one
> > isn't.
>
> No, I think sending your tax return to the author of some program you
> modify is mind-bogglingly stupid, whereas sending the chan
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>
> > Binary only distribution *inhibits* changes, and makes them *harder*,
> > without making them strictly impossible. The GPL says that the costs
> > of including source are trivial--an extra CD, and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Binary only distribution *inhibits* changes, and makes them *harder*,
> without making them strictly impossible. The GPL says that the costs
> of including source are trivial--an extra CD, and therefore requires
> you to share them.
It may be po
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 05:54:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > If you want that formulated as a "principle", as though that makes it
> > somehow better, I've already said:
> > ] Sending your tax return, or your latest entries
> > ] in your diary, or whatever,
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> > Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> But despite the above I do want to point out that the argument
> >> about "the only thing stopping the possessor" can easily (and,
> >> IMHO, more ju
Anthony Towns writes:
> If you want that formulated as a "principle", as though that makes it
> somehow better, I've already said:
>
> ] Sending your tax return, or your latest entries
> ] in your diary, or whatever, to someone random and sending your changes
> ] to some program to its auth
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 05:21:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sure; it's a plainly stupid idea. No one's seriously advocating it,
> and it doesn't benefit anyone. Please at least come up with examples
> that are vaguely _plausible_.
[...]
> Which is to say: sending your tax return to someone whe
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 08:28:37AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:27:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > 1) The freedom to take away other poeple's freedom, and
> > Number (1) is a real imposition, but not a real freedom.
>
> "The freedom to XXX is not a real free
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But despite the above I do want to point out that the argument
>> about "the only thing stopping the possessor" can easily (and,
>> IMHO, more justifiably) be used against the GPL and in favor of
>> BS
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:19:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 08:01:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > The fundamental premise of free software is that copyright is an
> > artificial limitation on what I can do whit a piece of software, and
> > that I should be a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> * Software is a social artifact with significant social consequences,
>> and therefore ought to be responsive to social pressures (i.e., not
>> just individuals).
> [...]
>> My favorite is the firs
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:21:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > No, I'm sorry; I reserve my right to do so on a case-by-case basis.
> I've given a specific case. Can you articulate why a "you must give
> me your tax return if possible, and costs are paid" requir
Anthony Towns writes:
> > then you have to say which restrictions you think are
> > acceptible and which you think aren't. I've sketched out my method of
> > analyzing such a question, but you haven't. Would you care to do so
> > please?
>
> No, I'm sorry; I reserve my right to do so on a case
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:44:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Then, please, describe for me what your standard is. What freedoms
> count?
If I felt confident being able to do that in advance, I'd be writing up
a Debian Free Software Definition that defined them.
> You seem to take th
Anthony Towns writes:
> Look, I know it's fun to redefine words so that you can pretend whatever
> you're arguing against is a contradiction in terms, but it doesn't
> go anywhere. Maybe *you* think that the *ability* to take away other
> people's freedom isn't a "freedom", but other people, incl
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:27:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> 1) The freedom to take away other poeple's freedom, and
> Number (1) is a real imposition, but not a real freedom.
"The freedom to XXX is not a real freedom."
Look, I know it's fun to redefine words so that you can pretend wh
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Software is a social artifact with significant social consequences,
> and therefore ought to be responsive to social pressures (i.e., not
> just individuals).
[...]
> My favorite is the first, which is why I think freedoms should attach
> to use.
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But despite the above I do want to point out that the argument about
> "the only thing stopping the possessor" can easily (and, IMHO, more
> justifiably) be used against the GPL and in favor of BSD-style
> licensing. Simply s/possessor/possessor of sou
Anthony Towns writes:
> I don't think so; the fundamental premise of free software is:
>
> * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
> * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
> * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
> * The
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But despite the above I do want to point out that the argument about
> "the only thing stopping the possessor" can easily (and, IMHO, more
> justifiably) be used against the GPL and in favor of BSD-style
> licensing. Simply s/possessor/possessor of source/ to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> The fundamental premise of free software is that copyright is an
> artificial limitation on what I can do whit a piece of software, and
> that I should be able to modify it and copy it.
That's debatable, of course. One can get to free software v
* Anthony Towns [030317 10:20]:
> I don't think so; the fundamental premise of free software is:
>
> * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
> * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
> * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 08:01:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 06:08:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > The GPL's source distribution requirement actually augments the
> > > freedom of the possessor of the code
> > You say that
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 08:17:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> It passes the written DFSG.
So, you'd accept Thomas's tax return as DFSG-free, then?
> Not everything that passes the DFSG as written is free -- that's why
> they're guidelines, not a definition -- but I think it's fair for the
> nu
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 06:08:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > The GPL's source distribution requirement actually augments the
> > freedom of the possessor of the code
>
> You say that like the "possessor" of the code is somehow special, but
> the user of the c
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 06:08:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The GPL's source distribution requirement actually augments the
> freedom of the possessor of the code
You say that like the "possessor" of the code is somehow special, but
the user of the code, and the author of the code aren
Anthony Towns writes:
> > You have articulated a difference between "cannot" and "don't want
> > to", but as I think I showed, that difference doesn't bear up in this
> > case.
>
> You haven't made any arguments that don't apply equally well to the GPL
> as compared to the BSD.
Yes I have, but
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 02:44:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > It passes the written DFSG. Not everything that passes the DFSG as
> > written is free -- that's why they're guidelines, not a definition --
> > but I think it's fair for the null hypothesis to be "sa
Anthony Towns writes:
> It passes the written DFSG. Not everything that passes the DFSG as
> written is free -- that's why they're guidelines, not a definition --
> but I think it's fair for the null hypothesis to be "satisfies the DFSG
> as written = free", and expect people who want to read bet
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 04:17:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:54:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Seriously, you're welcome to hate the clause all you like; there are
> > people out there who hate BSD licensing and others who hate GPL licensing.
> > You do need
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:54:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Seriously, you're welcome to hate the clause all you like; there are
> people out there who hate BSD licensing and others who hate GPL licensing.
> You do need something stronger than a firm opinion and a lot of repetition
> to declar
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 13 March 2003 03:45 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> I don't think it's a horror story at all. Have you been paying
>> attention to my recent posts?
>
> Well, actually I guess I got kind of muddled. I did notice since
> then that you appea
Steve Langasek said:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:55:44PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> The argument is that "//rmi.bar.com/Bar" is a GPL'd program, and this
>> java application (under whatever license; say BSD) makes use of it.
>
>> Now, it seems clear that this application is, in fact, linking t
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:55:44PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:30:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > If this code fragment were then added to a GPL'd program, and
> > distributed, with the intention that people would run it and thus link
> > it with rmi.bar.com
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:42:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > So far, I'm just saying that I think requiring release of server if an RPC
> > call is made from a Free work is a "Bad Thing" on general principles.
> That's not possible. If I write a server, and put it up one the web,
> there's
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 03:55:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > That discriminates against people with money in their bank accounts.
> > The tax return thing probably discriminates against people who pay
> > tax. Personally, I'm happy to let the tax thing fail the
On Thursday 13 March 2003 03:45 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wednesday 12 March 2003 04:34 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Right, so here's what I'll do. I'll create a non-free derivative of
> > [...]
> > I know you meant this as a code
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:45:15PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
> I'd also like to ask a clarification of scope question: Are we discussing
> whether:
> 1) The GPLv2 should be interpreted to treat RPC calls as creating a combined
> work?
> 2) The GPLv3+ should be altered to make RPC calls create a
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:48:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Or how about this: "If you have $100 in your bank account, then you
> > must send it to the author of the program as soon as you have the
> > ability, otherwise, you can use the program at no cost."
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 12 March 2003 04:34 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Right, so here's what I'll do. I'll create a non-free derivative of
> > GNU Foo, which adds a splendid text-manipulation function that many
> > people want. And I'll write a CGI so th
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> People who develop GPL code do so with the understanding that nobody can
> take that code and make it proprietary. This is the fundamental, basic,
> ultimate reason people use the GPL instead of less restrictive licenses.
Such people are idiots. I dev
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:45:15PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
> 1) The GPLv2 should be interpreted to treat RPC calls as creating a combined
> work?
>
> 2) The GPLv3+ should be altered to make RPC calls create a combined work
> explicitly?
I'm not sure if the "combined work" is relevant, here.
[I screwed up and sent this to Glenn first, apologies]
I'd also like to ask a clarification of scope question: Are we discussing
whether:
1) The GPLv2 should be interpreted to treat RPC calls as creating a combined
work?
2) The GPLv3+ should be altered to make RPC calls create a combined work
* Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030313 06:15]:
> People who develop GPL code do so with the understanding that nobody can
> take that code and make it proprietary. This is the fundamental, basic,
> ultimate reason people use the GPL instead of less restrictive licenses.
But we (at least I) a
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:34:11PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The main point to consider here is the intent of the person providing
> > the GPL client. Remember that the GPL says it is ALWAYS ok to create
> > non-free derivatives of GPL w
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 08:19:34PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
> Furthermore, if you made enough modifications and/or innovations to prevent
> being outcompeted by a free competitor derived from the same GPL sources you
> used, then you have committed considerable capital resources. Once again,
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 04:34 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Right, so here's what I'll do. I'll create a non-free derivative of
> GNU Foo, which adds a splendid text-manipulation function that many
> people want. And I'll write a CGI so that people can type in text and
> my web site will r
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:48:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Or how about this: "If you have $100 in your bank account, then you
> must send it to the author of the program as soon as you have the
> ability, otherwise, you can use the program at no cost."
That discriminates against pe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
> > > Anthony Towns is quite right that it is illegitimate to argue "this is
> > > a genuine pain, so it must be non-free".
> >
> > I think there's a difference between having people be *unable* to hack
> > on the soft
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The main point to consider here is the intent of the person providing
> the GPL client. Remember that the GPL says it is ALWAYS ok to create
> non-free derivatives of GPL works, if you don't distribute them at all.
> This means that, even if you regard
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, someone does this to a GPL library, which was intended by the author
> to have source be available to anyone using it. However, now you're linking
> against it without actually having been given a copy at all; just a reference
> to some generic inte
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 04:27, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > There are freedoms that you get from having the source code other than
> > > replacing the version you're interacting with. You can learn how
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:02:23AM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
> and you're starting to say that the GPL denies you the right to look
> at http://www.microsoft.com with a free web browser, or http://www.fsf.org
> with IE.
Not at all.
> What's the difference? The distinction between a web prot
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 01:12 am, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:49:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > The "ASP loophole", it seems to me, is merely another technical means
> > for a dynamic link, and should be subject to exactly the same
> > requirements as for all o
On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 04:27, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > There are freedoms that you get from having the source code other than
> > replacing the version you're interacting with. You can learn how
> > algorithms work. You can incorporate it into o
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:10:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
>> Someone already answered the google question for you -- it saves
>> you the 20k on a Google Search Appliance for your intranet.
>
> That's akin to someone releasing the source of a neat,
>
On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 04:12, Anthony Towns wrote:
[Much good stuff snipped]
> I think it would be really nice to be able to justify tests like:
>
> (d) can you use it completely naively - without reading,
> understanding or thinking about the license - without running
>
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:42:28AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 06:57:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The benefits you can get from the Windows source code are _exactly_
> > the same in nature as those you obtain from the Google source code.
> Not exactly. I can modif
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:25:42AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> There are clearly about six different "ASP loopholes" confusing this
> discussion. :) I propose from now on that people stop saying "the ASP
> loophole" as if there were only one. David Turner contends that the
> real problem
Anthony Towns writes:
> > Anthony Towns is quite right that it is illegitimate to argue "this is
> > a genuine pain, so it must be non-free".
>
> I think there's a difference between having people be *unable* to hack
> on the software (in the case of the desert island, or the broke student),
>
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 06:57:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The benefits you can get from the Windows source code are _exactly_
> the same in nature as those you obtain from the Google source code.
Not exactly. I can modify the source of the Windows source, compile it
and use the changes[1].
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But they're legitimate interests that users of Free Software want. I
> don't see why "altering the application you actually run" is the only
> goal that's allowed for Free Software. These aren't "side effects" --
> they're primary, important goals in th
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There are freedoms that you get from having the source code other than
> replacing the version you're interacting with. You can learn how
> algorithms work. You can incorporate it into other software systems.
I could get freedoms by having the tax retu
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 20:34, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > > Why the GPL is free
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > But then why is the forced distribution of source ok which the GPL
> > > >
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hence the ASP loophole: you can take a program licensed under the GPL,
> pound it into this type of interface, and you no longer have to
> distribute anything at all for people to use it. The GPL is dependent
> on distribution in order for people to be
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:49:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So IIUC, Anthony Towns is especially exercised by the alleged
> difficulty with the QPL's apparent forced publication requirement,
> which he things should be no difficulty at all.
No, I'm not decided on it. I don't see what t
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:50:54PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> In the case of Google, their releasing source simply doesn't let me
> improve Google--period.
This is entirely misleading.
Microsoft releasing the source code to Windows doesn't let you improve
Windows--period, in this sense eithe
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:30:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> If this code fragment were then added to a GPL'd program, and
> distributed, with the intention that people would run it and thus link
> it with rmi.bar.com's non-free code, in order to produce a program
> without source, then
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 21:50, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:10:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > Someone already answered the google question for you -- it saves you the
> > 20k on a Google Search Appliance for your intranet.
>
> That's akin to someone releasing the source o
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:10:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> Someone already answered the google question for you -- it saves you the
> 20k on a Google Search Appliance for your intranet.
That's akin to someone releasing the source of a neat, self-contained
algorithm from an application. I c
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 08:36:44PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> [note: ASP stands for Application Service Provider, and an example ASP
> is provided further down in this message]
OK. It's ASP in the context of HTTP (probably due to the nearby
PHPNuke thread) that caused my confusion.
--
Glenn M
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 20:34, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Why the GPL is free
> > > ---
> > >
> > > But then why is the forced distribution of source ok which the GPL
> > > requires? Because this actually augments the freedom of t
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why the GPL is free
> > ---
> >
> > But then why is the forced distribution of source ok which the GPL
> > requires? Because this actually augments the freedom of the recipient
> > of the code.
>
> Doesn't this depend on which "reci
[note: ASP stands for Application Service Provider, and an example ASP
is provided further down in this message]
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 15:49, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Why a Forced Publication Requirement is Not Free
>
>
> The basic reason her
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:49:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > We have already said that, in the context of the GPL, static linking
> > and dynamic linking both make a "single program", and anyone who
> > distributes that program, in parts or
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:49:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> We have already said that, in the context of the GPL, static linking
> and dynamic linking both make a "single program", and anyone who
> distributes that program, in parts or as a single whole, with the
> intention of distribu
76 matches
Mail list logo