http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
I think this applies directly to D2.
Note: this post is no offence to Andrei's great work. Just a report we /also/
need a free/copyleft D2 manual; or that TDPL's content becomes free in a short
while. Even more since TDPL was kind of a
I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
Steve
>
> What about Qt, have any of those companies used it?
Qt is dual licensed. You can go with a commercial license, support etc or
you can go LGPL.
You can still develop closed source software using LGPL provided your work
doesn't modify the library and that you don't prevent end users from revers
So write some documentation then. We don't need any more philosophical
topics on what should/should not be done.
spir wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
I think this applies directly to D2.
Note: this post is no offence to Andrei's great work. Just a report we
/also/ need a free/copyleft D2 manual; or that TDPL's content becomes
free in a short while. Even more since TDPL was
Am 24.03.2011 16:22, schrieb Don:
spir wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
I think this applies directly to D2.
Note: this post is no offence to Andrei's great work. Just a report we
/also/ need a free/copyleft D2 manual; or that TDPL's content becomes
free in a s
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:22:10 +0200, Don wrote:
I would say that what we really need is tutorials, rather than a
refernce work. Most urgently we need to make sure that the existing
tutorials that contain errors or refer to obsolete/removed features, get
pulled down.
Something of interest:
On 03/24/2011 04:58 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 24.03.2011 16:22, schrieb Don:
spir wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
I think this applies directly to D2.
Note: this post is no offence to Andrei's great work. Just a report we
/also/ need a free/copyleft D2 manual; or
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 17:56 +, Steve Teale wrote:
> I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
>
> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>
> Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
Not in my view. I like the GPL a
>>
>> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>>
>> Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
>
>
> Not in my view. I like the GPL and especially the LGPL.
But your leaning toward LGPL says something ;=)
GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
personally i prefer bsd style licenses but the gpl has its right to
exist. and while bsd ensures freedom for developers, the gpl is more
targeted at users. it's a kind of politic statement and i understand the
gnu project as an "user rights move
rote:
>> I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
>>
>> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>>
>> Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
>
>
> Not in my view. I like the GPL and especially the LGPL.
>
> --
> R
On 10/22/11, Sean Kelly wrote:
> I don't like either one, because having the letters "GPL" in a license name
> is an automatic hands-off from legal in every company I've ever worked.
What about Qt, have any of those companies used it?
"Steve Teale" wrote in message
news:j7v048$1ut1$1...@digitalmars.com...
> I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
>
> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>
> Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
>
Hah! Classic :)
Even ignoring the
It's the dual licensing thing I like about the GPL - you can
be about the freedom, while still keeping a money making opportunity.
I also like how it makes a stand on the freedom issue, a strong one.
The BSD license is the one I loathe and despise. It puts an annoying
restriction on you, without
Dunno. I've never needed anything like it.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 22, 2011, at 12:44 PM, Andrej Mitrovic
wrote:
> On 10/22/11, Sean Kelly wrote:
>> I don't like either one, because having the letters "GPL" in a license name
>> is an automatic hands-off from legal in every company I've ev
"Adam D. Ruppe" wrote in message
news:j7vb86$2ljc$1...@digitalmars.com...
> It's the dual licensing thing I like about the GPL - you can
> be about the freedom, while still keeping a money making opportunity.
>
> I also like how it makes a stand on the freedom issue, a strong one.
>
>
> The BSD l
On Saturday, October 22, 2011 21:44:54 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 10/22/11, Sean Kelly wrote:
> > I don't like either one, because having the letters "GPL" in a license
> > name is an automatic hands-off from legal in every company I've ever
> > worked.
> What about Qt, have any of those companie
Even the two clause BSD annoys me because of this:
"Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
It strikes me as empty vanity.
It's annoying as it means a pass through the documentation team for distributed
software, but whatever. At least it's usable. Personally, my favorite is the
Boost license, and I'm just about to the point where I don't even care about
source code attribution for my own work.
Sent from my iPhon
"Adam D. Ruppe" wrote in message
news:j7vdt1$2r48$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Even the two clause BSD annoys me because of this:
>
> "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> documentation and/or other
"Steve Teale" wrote in message
news:j7v048$1ut1$1...@digitalmars.com...
> I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
>
> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>
> Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
Indeed, I have always thought of GPL&#x
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 19:02 +, Steve Teale wrote:
> >>
> >> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
> >>
> >> Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
> >
> >
> > Not in my view. I like the GPL and especially the LGPL.
>
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 21:06 +0200, Mirko Pilger wrote:
> > GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>
> personally i prefer bsd style licenses but the gpl has its right to
> exist. and while bsd ensures freedom for developers, the gpl is more
> targeted at users. it's
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 12:29 -0700, Sean Kelly wrote:
> I don't like either one, because having the letters "GPL" in a license name
> is an automatic hands-off from legal in every company I've ever worked.
I think this may be right pragmatically, but is it simply that lawyers
for these companies
On 2011-10-22 21:44, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 10/22/11, Sean Kelly wrote:
I don't like either one, because having the letters "GPL" in a license name
is an automatic hands-off from legal in every company I've ever worked.
What about Qt, have any of those companies used it?
Qt is available
out any
responsibility to "give back" in some way that the FOSS community finds
constructive and supportive.
> - Dual-licensing software under both GPL and paid-proprietary is feasable.
> I've never been able to think of a way to do the same with something more
> free like zl
On 23.10.2011 00:28, Sean Kelly wrote:
It's annoying as it means a pass through the documentation team for distributed
software, but whatever. At least it's usable. Personally, my favorite is the
Boost license, and I'm just about to the point where I don't even care about
source code attribut
>Personally, > my favorite is the Boost license, and I'm just about to
>the point where > I don't even care about source code attribution for
>my own work.
>
Sean,
Agree with you 100%. Just put your name on the original. If they need it
spelled out then maybe they'll be inclined to contribute
ows such use, and in no way are we Phobos
contributors being conned. We're well aware of it and in fact that's one big
reason why we chose Boost over GPL.
People are free to take the Phobos source and do whatever they please with it,
with our blessing. Hey, if Vanilla Ice "sam
On 10/23/2011 1:52 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
Certainly: That the world of dynamic linking is slightly different from
that of static linking.
I think that line is arbitrary and doesn't really exist. For example, what does
that mean when template code gets stuffed in the .h files?
On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 10:36 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 10/23/2011 1:52 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
> > Certainly: That the world of dynamic linking is slightly different from
> > that of static linking.
>
> I think that line is arbitrary and doesn't really exist. For example, what
> does
> t
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:11 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
> It funny how when it comes to licences, viral is used as a derogatory
> term, but when used in marketing, viral is a positive goal that everyone
> wants to achieve.
That is because you live in a capitalist economy. I don't find it
funny at a
On Sunday, October 23, 2011 11:06:26 Jose Armando Garcia wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:11 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
> > It funny how when it comes to licences, viral is used as a derogatory
> > term, but when used in marketing, viral is a positive goal that everyone
> > wants to achieve.
>
>
On Sunday, October 23, 2011 14:26:34 Don wrote:
> On 23.10.2011 00:28, Sean Kelly wrote:
> > It's annoying as it means a pass through the documentation team for
> > distributed software, but whatever. At least it's usable. Personally,
> > my favorite is the Boost license, and I'm just about to the
On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:
I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
No, it doesn't. It's pure flamebait. Nobody wants to get herpes and it
serves n
On 10/23/2011 10:48 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
Hasn't the issue of source code distribution (of templates) in C++ (and
D?) been hashed out, it's what resulted in the Boost licence in the
first place?
Boost doesn't solve GPL issues if the code is GPL licensed :-)
But we like Boost and use it for
"Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
news:mailman.350.1319394157.24802.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> On Sunday, October 23, 2011 11:06:26 Jose Armando Garcia wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:11 AM, Russel Winder
>> wrote:
>> > It funny how when it comes to licences, viral is used as a
>>
"Jeff Nowakowski" wrote in message
news:j81rap$1f50$1...@digitalmars.com...
> On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:
>> I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
>>
>> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>>
>> Doesn't th
"Jeff Nowakowski" wrote in message
news:j81rap$1f50$1...@digitalmars.com...
> On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:
>> I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
>>
>> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>>
>> Doesn't th
"Chante" wrote in message
news:j81ur0$1oij$1...@digitalmars.com...
>
> "Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
> news:mailman.350.1319394157.24802.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>>
>> LOL. I don't think that it has anything to do with a capitalist anything.
>> It's
>> going purely by the definitio
Am 23.10.2011 22:59, schrieb Chante:
> "Jeff Nowakowski" wrote in message
> news:j81rap$1f50$1...@digitalmars.com...
>> On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:
>>> I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
>>>
>>> GPL: &quo
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:j81vad$1pl0$1...@digitalmars.com...
> "Chante" wrote in message
> news:j81ur0$1oij$1...@digitalmars.com...
>>
>> "Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
>> news:mailman.350.1319394157.24802.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>>>
>>> LOL. I don't think that it
t;>>> I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
>>>>
>>>> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't. It's pure flamebait. Nob
;>> On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:
>>>>> I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
>>>>>
>>>>> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't that just hit the nail on t
On 10/23/2011 2:56 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
But I'd be interested in the opinions of other people in this newsgroup
who earn money with software development (or have done so in the past):
Have you ever experienced exposure to GPL'ed or proprietary software as
a hindrance for a job?
In once sell
quot;Jeff Nowakowski" wrote in message
>>>> news:j81rap$1f50$1...@digitalmars.com...
>>>>> On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:
>>>>>> I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
On 23.10.2011 20:27, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, October 23, 2011 14:26:34 Don wrote:
On 23.10.2011 00:28, Sean Kelly wrote:
It's annoying as it means a pass through the documentation team for
distributed software, but whatever. At least it's usable. Personally,
my favorite is the Boost
>I'd�never�seen�it�before�-�maybe�I�lead�a�sheltered�life.
>
>GPL:�"Free�as�in�Herpes"
>
>Doesn't�that�just�hit�the�nail�on�the�head.
No, not at all.
First, it isn't new: it's just the "GPL is viral" classic FUD, then
it's still incorrec
"renoX" wrote in message
news:j8383e$1ul8$1...@digitalmars.com...
> >I'dneverseenitbefore-maybeIleadashelteredlife.
>>
>>GPL:"FreeasinHerpes"
>>
>>Doesn'tthatjusthitthenailonthehead.
What happened to the spaces?
>
> No, not at all.
> First, it isn't new: it's just the "GPL is viral" classic FUD
Sean Kelly Wrote:
> I don't like either one, because having the letters "GPL" in a license name
> is an automatic hands-off from legal in every company I've ever worked.
That's perfect. Corporations MUST pay.
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
> Even ignoring the viral nature, the "hundred page wall of legalese" alone is
> enough to make me very, very nervous about going anywhere near it (same goes
> for creative commons). Not to mention the thousand different versions of
> [L]GPL.
GPL is very simple: stay ope
Chante Wrote:
> While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the knowledge to
> do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in mind as a
> potential cure for the current state of affairs (not a cure for viral
> source code though). Of course, noting that first-to-fil
ople we want to help :)
The Boost license for Phobos allows such use, and in no way are we
Phobos contributors being conned. We're well aware of it and in fact
that's one big reason why we chose Boost over GPL.
People are free to take the Phobos source and do whatever they please
> You're afraid of others, but GPL can also protect *your* code.
Most notably GPL protects the rights of your users. Are you thinking about your
users?
a
piece of software. There is a very good reason things like music, art,
and written works are not patentable. Free speech is at odds with
software patents.
4. Unlike a physical entity, it is very likely a simple individual,
working on his own time with his own ideas, can create software t
It's a noble goal, and I suspect the software industry is trending in this
direction, but in the interim it's impeding progress. Though I'm sure some
would say this is a worthwhile sacrifice for the potential benefit.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 24, 2011, at 5:41 AM, Kagamin wrote:
> Nick Sa
e of a patent (currently 17 years).
> 3. It is a very slippery slope to go down. Software is a purely *abstract*
> thing, it's not a machine. It can be produced en mass with near-zero cost.
> It can be expressed via source code, which is *not* a piece of software.
> There
On 10/24/2011 05:30 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Meh, use of the term "FUD" itself has become a FUD tactic. And it's just an
analogy (plus joke). Analogies are rarely perfect and they aren't meant to
hold up to being picked apart by all the little details. It's close enough
as an analogy.
It's d
Am 24.10.2011 01:59, schrieb Walter Bright:
> On 10/23/2011 2:56 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
>> But I'd be interested in the opinions of other people in this newsgroup
>> who earn money with software development (or have done so in the past):
>> Have you ever experienced exposure to GPL'ed or propriet
Am 24.10.2011 02:35, schrieb Chante:
> "Daniel Gibson" wrote in message
> news:j822kv$7jf$2...@digitalmars.com...
>>
>> I've never read a job description that said "we want a programmer that
>> has no job experience and has not touched GPL code either".
>
> While such a "concept" may be new to y
"Kagamin" wrote in message
news:j83tie$abu$1...@digitalmars.com...
>> You're afraid of others, but GPL can also protect *your* code.
>
> Most notably GPL protects the rights of your users. Are you thinking about
> your users?
That's just backwards, GPL *limits* user rights. For instance, the ri
"Jeff Nowakowski" wrote in message
news:j84fli$1it5$1...@digitalmars.com...
> On 10/24/2011 05:30 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>> Meh, use of the term "FUD" itself has become a FUD tactic. And it's just
>> an
>> analogy (plus joke). Analogies are rarely perfect and they aren't meant
>> to
>> h
On 10/24/2011 1:02 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Ok, this kinda makes sense, but I guess that having been exposed to the
GPL'ed version wouldn't have made the deal impossible, just harder?
Right - not impossible, just harder.
(Couldn't they just compare the code or something?)
At the rates lawy
"Kagamin" wrote in message
news:j83tbq$a12$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Chante Wrote:
>
>> While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the knowledge
>> to
>> do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in mind as
>> a
>> potential cure for the current state of affairs
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:j84kee$1vk5$1...@digitalmars.com...
> "Kagamin" wrote in message
> news:j83tie$abu$1...@digitalmars.com...
>>> You're afraid of others, but GPL can also protect *your* code.
>>
>> Most notably GPL protects the rights of your users. Are you thinking
>> a
"Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
news:op.v3u2chz6eav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:39:54 -0400, Kagamin wrote:
>
>> Chante Wrote:
>>
>>> While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the
>>> knowledge to
>>> do so), elimination of software patents was
"Daniel Gibson" wrote in message
news:j84ibc$1l0g$3...@digitalmars.com...
> Am 24.10.2011 02:35, schrieb Chante:
>> "Daniel Gibson" wrote in message
>> news:j822kv$7jf$2...@digitalmars.com...
>>>
>>> I've never read a job description that said "we want a programmer
>>> that
>>> has no job expe
"renoX" wrote in message
news:j8383e$1ul8$1...@digitalmars.com...
> >I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
>>
>>GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>>
>>Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
>
> No, not at all.
>
On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 22:51 -0500, Chante wrote:
[ . . . ]
> Simply keep it a secret ("trade secret"). First-to-file allows Big
> Softare Corp to claim rights to things which they have no proprietary
> right to. But I'm not read-up on this stuff, I'm just spouting feelings.
> My feelings are tha
> >>GPL:"Free as in Herpes"
> >>
> >>Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
> > Incorrect analogies are really, really nasty stuff, please don't
> > propagate this FUD.
> > renoX
> >
> Meh, use of the term "FUD&
> > First, it isn't new: it's just the "GPL is viral" classic FUD,
> Not that I care about anything GPL (rejected it long ago),
Your choice.
> but how is calling GPL'd code "viral" not appropriate when just
placing uninfected code next to it, infects it?
Because *someone* joined the GPL code an
On 10/24/2011 05:24 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
So expressing disapproval about something, and the reason for the
disapproval, is suddenly "deceitful propaganda and mudslinging"?
Cut the bullshit, Nick. I explained already why "GPL: "Free as in
Herpes" was flamebai
"renoX" wrote in message
news:j86eo6$6i8$1...@digitalmars.com...
>> > First, it isn't new: it's just the "GPL is viral" classic FUD,
>> Not that I care about anything GPL (rejected it long ago),
>
> Your choice.
>
>> but how is calling GPL'd code "viral" not appropriate when just
> placing uninf
ging"?
>
> Cut the bullshit, Nick. I explained already why "GPL: "Free as in
> Herpes" was flamebait, deceitful, mudslinging propaganda.
And I refute your explanation. That doesn't leave the discussion in a place
where "flamebait, deceitful, mudslinging
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
> 1. Software is already well-covered by copyright.
You can't write software out of thin air. Let's suppose ranges increase
usability of a collections library. Can you write a collections library without
knowing about ranges concept? That's what patents are for.
> 3
"Kagamin" wrote in message
news:j87a5u$1sjv$1...@digitalmars.com...
> there's no mercantile reason to restrict use of a patented technology
> in a GPL3 software.
Explain that statement please. Do you wish to retract it?
On 10/25/2011 04:48 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
It was indeed truthful. And as far as reasoning: The GPL propogates
itself through what it touches. That's what's considered "viral",
period.
Yes, it has *some* viral aspects. That doesn't mean "Free as in Herpe
> your users?
>
> That's just backwards, GPL *limits* user rights. For instance, the right to
> license my software however I damn well choose.
Licenses like boost exist to allow corporations to make money on free code
while restricting users. Of course GPL prohibits this.
Chante Wrote:
> > there's no mercantile reason to restrict use of a patented technology
> > in a GPL3 software.
>
> Explain that statement please. Do you wish to retract it?
GPL software cannot be sold for profit, so even if the author would be charged
a fee 1% per sold copy the patent holder
>> >
>> > Most notably GPL protects the rights of your users. Are you thinking
>> > about
>> > your users?
>>
>> That's just backwards, GPL *limits* user rights. For instance, the right
>> to
>> license my software however I damn we
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Kagamin wrote:
> Chante Wrote:
>
> > > there's no mercantile reason to restrict use of a patented technology
> > > in a GPL3 software.
> >
> > Explain that statement please. Do you wish to retract it?
>
> GPL software cannot be sold for profit, so even if the aut
"viral",
>> period.
>
> Yes, it has *some* viral aspects. That doesn't mean "Free as in Herpes"
> isn't deceitful mudslinging.
>
>> All these rediculous nitpicks about "useful purpose" and "voluntary
>> acts" are absolutely
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
> > Licenses like boost exist to allow corporations to make money on free code
> > while restricting users. Of course GPL prohibits this.
>
> It's free code. The whole point is to let people go ahead and use it.
Anyone can use GPL, it has no problem with it.
Brad Anderson Wrote:
> > GPL software cannot be sold for profit, so even if the author would be
> > charged a fee 1% per sold copy the patent holder will get 0 anyway.
> >
>
> Where'd you get that silly notion? It's libre, not gratis.
>
> [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLA
>> > > in a GPL3 software.
>> >
>> > Explain that statement please. Do you wish to retract it?
>>
>> GPL software cannot be sold for profit, so even if the author would be
>> charged a fee 1% per sold copy the patent holder will get 0 anyway.
>
"Kagamin" wrote in message
news:j884ui$cra$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
>
>> > Licenses like boost exist to allow corporations to make money on free
>> > code
>> > while restricting users. Of course GPL prohibits this.
>>
&g
I'm not getting the point on this, so I have to ask again what you mean
and this time I will do it by analysis (breaking it into pieces) and you
can then see what I'm not getting and hence tell me. (I read the
follow-up posts but I still don't get it). It could very well be that my
mind right n
On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 01:32 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[ . . . ]
> I think you misunderstood my point. What I was trying to say is: If
> someone's going to worry about others profiting from their free code, why'd
> they even make it free in the first place?
I have no pro
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
> There's already lots of
> zlib/MIT/etc software authors out there, how many of them have gotten ripped
> off from money that would have otherwise ended up in their pocket?
Oracle sells zlib database compression for $11500 per processor.
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
> I think you misunderstood my point. What I was trying to say is: If
> someone's going to worry about others profiting from their free code, why'd
> they even make it free in the first place?
Maybe they're commies. Ask Stallman.
On 23.10.2011 22:59, Chante wrote:
"Jeff Nowakowski" wrote in message
news:j81rap$1f50$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:
I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
Doesn't that just hit
On 10/26/2011 07:32 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Kagamin" wrote in message
news:j884ui$cra$1...@digitalmars.com...
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
Licenses like boost exist to allow corporations to make money on free
code
while restricting users. Of course GPL prohibits this.
It's
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 03:09:48 -0400, Russel Winder
wrote:
On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 01:32 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[ . . . ]
I think you misunderstood my point. What I was trying to say is: If
someone's going to worry about others profiting from their free code,
why'd
they ev
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:04:18 -0400, Chante
wrote:
"Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
news:op.v3u2chz6eav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:39:54 -0400, Kagamin wrote:
Chante Wrote:
While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the
knowledge to
do so),
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
> So you're saying the code you write as FOSS should cost something (i.e.
> you want something in return)? Interesting...
It's just two paradigms: if you choose freedom, GPL ensures and protects the
freedom. You can also provide your efforts to corporations - why n
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:37:02 -0400, Kagamin wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
1. Software is already well-covered by copyright.
You can't write software out of thin air. Let's suppose ranges increase
usability of a collections library. Can you write a collections library
without knowin
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:38:31 -0400, Kagamin wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
So you're saying the code you write as FOSS should cost something (i.e.
you want something in return)? Interesting...
It's just two paradigms: if you choose freedom, GPL ensures and protects
the freedom. You c
On 10/26/2011 12:51 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Jeff Nowakowski" wrote in message
Nitpicking? Are you serious? GPL has provided immense benefits and
has been voluntarily adopted around the world,
So have the non-viral free licenses.
And if I said they were "Free as in
tent application, corporations sell quality tools - everyone
benefit. MPEG LA (patent holder) said end users won't be charged for viewing
H264 video and they allow patent application without fees by free GPL-licensed
x264 encoder and free LGPL-licensed libavcodec decoder - opensource bene
1 - 100 of 645 matches
Mail list logo
