Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:03:02 -0400, Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> Peanuts aren't actually nuts, you know. They're legumes. So there
>>> might well be a case where the lable said "100% peanuts" and someone
>>> aller
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 02:02:03 -0400, Yigal Chripun
wrote:
On 31/03/2009 00:36, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
No, it would not be reasonable. In fact that would just be a nice fat
paycheck for the plaintiff's lawyer (and probably the defendant's
lawyer) and nothing else.
Nobody can expect someo
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 05:15:24 -0400, Kagamin wrote:
> Sergey Gromov Wrote:
>
>>> This is a lie. There is just no way for cigarette-chomping executives to
>>> not know, what are licenses and how they work.
>>
>> Sure they know. They know too well that one wrong step, one ignorant
>> developer, and
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:09:21 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:03:02 -0400, Bill Baxter wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:00:02 -0400, Yigal Chripun
>>> wrote:
>>>
people in the US sued MacDonald's
Sergey Gromov Wrote:
> > This is a lie. There is just no way for cigarette-chomping executives to
> > not know, what are licenses and how they work.
>
> Sure they know. They know too well that one wrong step, one ignorant
> developer, and they may kiss good-bye to their precious intellectual
>
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 31/03/2009 00:36, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Sure, it is not the only project that is GPL'd, but it is one of the
only GPL'd projects out there that is the basis of a successful company.
I don't really know of any others. So here is a challenge, name 10 of
those compan
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 30/03/2009 04:42, Mike Parker wrote:
No, it gives no freedom to developers at all. Using any GPL code in your
project /forces/ you to open your source. It takes the decision of
whether to open or not out of your hands and puts it in the hands of
whomever created the GPLe
On 31/03/2009 00:36, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
No, it would not be reasonable. In fact that would just be a nice fat
paycheck for the plaintiff's lawyer (and probably the defendant's
lawyer) and nothing else.
Nobody can expect someone to glimpse at machine code and later recall
how it was code
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 05:03:49 -0400, Kagamin wrote:
> Georg Wrede Wrote:
>
>> Seems BSD should be Our Way:
>>
>> [...] has a downside, the downside is that people, especially lawyers,
>> especially corporate bosses look at the GPL and experience fear. Fear
>> that all of their corporate secrets,
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:03:02 -0400, Bill Baxter wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:00:02 -0400, Yigal Chripun
>>> wrote:
>>>
people in the US sued MacDonal
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:03:02 -0400, Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:00:02 -0400, Yigal Chripun
wrote:
people in the US sued MacDonald's because their coffee was hot (and
they
even won the case!). other people sued a c
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:00:02 -0400, Yigal Chripun
> wrote:
>
>> people in the US sued MacDonald's because their coffee was hot (and they
>> even won the case!). other people sued a company since their peanuts
>> contains nuts.
> [...]
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:00:02 -0400, Yigal Chripun
wrote:
sources are not the only issue here. Linux is a monolithic kernel. that
means everything in it (including drivers) are one process. You already
know that. usually when you want to find (and fix) a problem, you'd use
a debugger whic
On 30/03/2009 19:24, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:38:45 -0400, Yigal Chripun
wrote:
On 27/03/2009 19:17, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Interesting anecdote: Our company developed a Linux driver to one piece
of hardware that our largest customer used. We did not release it
On 30/03/2009 04:42, Mike Parker wrote:
No, it gives no freedom to developers at all. Using any GPL code in your
project /forces/ you to open your source. It takes the decision of
whether to open or not out of your hands and puts it in the hands of
whomever created the GPLed product you use. Tha
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:38:45 -0400, Yigal Chripun
wrote:
On 27/03/2009 19:17, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Interesting anecdote: Our company developed a Linux driver to one piece
of hardware that our largest customer used. We did not release it under
GPL terms but this is OK legally since th
Georg Wrede Wrote:
> Seems BSD should be Our Way:
>
> [...] has a downside, the downside is that people, especially lawyers,
> especially corporate bosses look at the GPL and experience fear. Fear
> that all of their corporate secrets, business knowledge, and special
> sauce will suddenly be
""Jérôme M. Berger"" wrote in message
news:gqomss$103...@digitalmars.com...
>
> (of course, that would mean spending some time on
> gameplay and scenario and so on, which most game companies don't do
> anyway, they'd rather add some more useless special effects and use
> the same old script and g
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 29/03/2009 08:26, Mike Parker wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
How many companies do you know that use the BSD for their products?
BSD is used by universities and non-profit organizations not companies.
claiming that BSD > GPL in a corporate environment is simply wrong.
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 29/03/2009 08:26, Mike Parker wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
How many companies do you know that use the BSD for their products?
BSD is used by universities and non-profit organizations not companies.
claiming that BSD > GPL in a corporate environment is simply wrong.
On 29/03/2009 08:26, Mike Parker wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
How many companies do you know that use the BSD for their products?
BSD is used by universities and non-profit organizations not companies.
claiming that BSD > GPL in a corporate environment is simply wrong.
That's not the point.
== Quote from Georg Wrede (georg.wr...@iki.fi)'s article
> Seems BSD should be Our Way:
> [...] has a downside, the downside is that people, especially lawyers,
> especially corporate bosses look at the GPL and experience fear. Fear
> that all of their corporate secrets, business knowledge, and spe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sergey Gromov wrote:
> Sun, 29 Mar 2009 09:29:33 +0200, "Jérôme M. Berger" wrote:
>>> Sergey Gromov wrote:
>>> Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:38:45 +0300, Yigal Chripun wrote:
>>> Now, how would you make money on free, as in libre, software? How would
>>> you ma
Sun, 29 Mar 2009 09:29:33 +0200, "Jérôme M. Berger" wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Sergey Gromov wrote:
>> Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:38:45 +0300, Yigal Chripun wrote:
>>
>>> When you buy
>>> a car you are free to look under the hood and the same should apply to
>>> soft
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Rainer Deyke wrote:
> Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
>> Sergey Gromov wrote:
>>> Now, how would you make money on free, as in libre, software? How would
>>> you make a free, single-player RPG and still stay in business? All you
>>> can under GPL is take payment for dist
Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
> Sergey Gromov wrote:
>> Now, how would you make money on free, as in libre, software? How would
>> you make a free, single-player RPG and still stay in business? All you
>> can under GPL is take payment for distribution, as long as nobody else
>> starts to distribute it
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
> how often is "free as in libre" software ever *not* available
> at no cost? Heck, how often is that even realistically possible?),
You can use GPL only for sources. http://www.planeshift.it developers released
sources under GPL and content under proprietary license. The
Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
Now, how would you make money on free, as in libre, software? How would
you make a free, single-player RPG and still stay in business? All you
can under GPL is take payment for distribution, as long as nobody else
starts to distribute it for free. This means giving your
""Jérôme M. Berger"" wrote in message
news:gqn80v$17g...@digitalmars.com...
>
> Ask RedHat, or any of the increasingly large number of companies
> that *do* make money on free, as in libre, software. Basically, you
> make your customers pay for specific developments and
> customizations. Once the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sergey Gromov wrote:
> Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:38:45 +0300, Yigal Chripun wrote:
>
>> When you buy
>> a car you are free to look under the hood and the same should apply to
>> software. sure, the manufacturer can and probably should void any
>> warrant
Yigal Chripun wrote:
How many companies do you know that use the BSD for their products?
BSD is used by universities and non-profit organizations not companies.
claiming that BSD > GPL in a corporate environment is simply wrong.
That's not the point. Plenty of companies use open source libra
Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:38:45 +0300, Yigal Chripun wrote:
> When you buy
> a car you are free to look under the hood and the same should apply to
> software. sure, the manufacturer can and probably should void any
> warranty if you mess with the internals of its product, but they
> shouldn't preve
On 28/03/2009 19:46, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Yigal Chripun" wrote in message
news:gql5ou$2te...@digitalmars.com...
On 27/03/2009 19:17, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
This is the kind of mentality I think that completely goes against
progress, and it's fostered by the GPL. I'm not saying the GPL
"Yigal Chripun" wrote in message
news:gql5ou$2te...@digitalmars.com...
> On 27/03/2009 19:17, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>> This is the kind of mentality I think that completely goes against
>> progress, and it's fostered by the GPL. I'm not saying the GPL is
>> useless, but I see little to n
On 27/03/2009 19:17, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Interesting anecdote: Our company developed a Linux driver to one piece
of hardware that our largest customer used. We did not release it under
GPL terms but this is OK legally since the kernel doesn't require GPL'd
drivers.
The customer had a pr
Alix Pexton wrote:
> Mike Parker wrote:
>> Alix Pexton wrote:
>>> Walter Bright wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Walter Bright" wrote in message
> news:gqj7kh$l...@digitalmars.com...
>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> (The whole idea of "free as in freedom software" not also
>>
Mike Parker wrote:
Alix Pexton wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Walter Bright" wrote in message
news:gqj7kh$l...@digitalmars.com...
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
(The whole idea of "free as in freedom software" not also implying
"free as in beer" (Side note: since when is beer f
Alix Pexton wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Walter Bright" wrote in message
news:gqj7kh$l...@digitalmars.com...
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
(The whole idea of "free as in freedom software" not also implying
"free as in beer" (Side note: since when is beer free?) is complete
b
Walter Bright wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Walter Bright" wrote in message
news:gqj7kh$l...@digitalmars.com...
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
(The whole idea of "free as in freedom software" not also implying
"free as in beer" (Side note: since when is beer free?) is complete
bullocks.) (And yes,
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Walter Bright" wrote in message
news:gqj7kh$l...@digitalmars.com...
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
(The whole idea of "free as in freedom software" not also implying "free
as in beer" (Side note: since when is beer free?) is complete bullocks.)
(And yes, I just used the word "
"Walter Bright" wrote in message
news:gqj7kh$l...@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> (The whole idea of "free as in freedom software" not also implying "free
>> as in beer" (Side note: since when is beer free?) is complete bullocks.)
>> (And yes, I just used the word "bullocks". I'm
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
(The whole idea of "free
as in freedom software" not also implying "free as in beer" (Side note:
since when is beer free?) is complete bullocks.) (And yes, I just used the
word "bullocks". I'm in a weird mood...)
I always thought the "free as in beer" came from this:
h
"dsimcha" wrote in message
news:gqj4a0$2sm...@digitalmars.com...
> == Quote from Nick Sabalausky (a...@a.a)'s article
> (Side note:
>> since when is beer free?) is complete bullocks.)
>
> I've explained this to people several times before because others have
> been confused by it, too. Free as
== Quote from Nick Sabalausky (a...@a.a)'s article
(Side note:
> since when is beer free?) is complete bullocks.)
I've explained this to people several times before because others have been
confused by it, too. Free as in
beer means free as in "Dude, I'm going to the frat party to get smashed be
"Georg Wrede" wrote in message
news:gqiq8o$2b5...@digitalmars.com...
>
> Seems BSD should be Our Way:
>
> [...] has a downside, the downside is that people, especially lawyers,
> especially corporate bosses look at the GPL and experience fear. Fear that
> all of their corporate secrets, busines
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:58:03 -0400, Sean Kelly
wrote:
Georg Wrede wrote:
Seems BSD should be Our Way
If the attribution clause in the BSD license really does cover
application binaries built containing a BSD-licensed library then it's
pretty much not an option in most corporate enviro
Georg Wrede wrote:
Seems BSD should be Our Way
If the attribution clause in the BSD license really does cover
application binaries built containing a BSD-licensed library then it's
pretty much not an option in most corporate environments. I've tried to
get corporate documentation and legal
Seems BSD should be Our Way:
[...] has a downside, the downside is that people, especially lawyers,
especially corporate bosses look at the GPL and experience fear. Fear
that all of their corporate secrets, business knowledge, and special
sauce will suddenly be everted to the outside world by
48 matches
Mail list logo
