On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:52:42 -0600
Derek Martin wrote:
> I've pointed out several times in this thread that it's unlikely that
> using GPL for Kerberos would have made any difference [snip]
It wouldn't, because Microsoft did in fact write their own proprietary
implementation of the Kerberos v5 p
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 08:47:41AM -0500, Mark Woodward wrote:
> On 01/09/2013 07:39 PM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
> >This is not a freedom of denying freedom. It does not deny any
> >freedom - Any 3rd party recipient of the non-free software can
> >still obtain the free software.
>
> Think
On 01/10/2013 10:52 AM, Rich Pieri wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:24:46 -0500
> Mark Woodward wrote:
>
>> There is no conflation, the two are very much related. Please explain
>> how "rights" are different than "freedoms" in a way that describing
>> freedoms as rights is improper. A freedom is
On 01/09/2013 11:43 AM, Rich Pieri wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 05:21:09 -0500
> John Abreau wrote:
>
>> Under democracy, citizens are prohibited from seizing power by force
>> and imposing a military dictatorship on their fellow citizens. Under
>> anarchy, citizens are not so prohibited.
> This na
On 01/10/2013 09:41 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
>> From: John Abreau [mailto:abre...@gmail.com]
>>
>> Another silly claim. The FSF cannot sue Joe on behalf of the copyright
>> holder.
>> The FSF can only sue if the copyright was assigned to the FSF.
>>
>> The FSF would not be entitled to su
> From: Bill Bogstad [mailto:bogs...@pobox.com]
>
> You also keep implying that there are substantial financial benefits
> received by people/entities who attempt to enforce free software
> licenses. I would request that you provide some evidence of this.
> I'm not saying they didn't make some m
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 10:54:24 -0500
Gordon Marx wrote:
> I said good day!
Well played, sir. Well played.
--
Rich P.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Rich Pieri wrote:
> A right is an idea defined by law or common consensus. Freedom is the
> state of being without restriction or duress. Right and freedom are
> related but they are not synonymous.
Everyone has the right to blather at each other on the list, bea
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:24:46 -0500
Mark Woodward wrote:
> There is no conflation, the two are very much related. Please explain
> how "rights" are different than "freedoms" in a way that describing
> freedoms as rights is improper. A freedom is typically a right.
A right is an idea defined by
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu)
wrote:
>> From: John Abreau [mailto:abre...@gmail.com]
>>
>> Another silly claim. The FSF cannot sue Joe on behalf of the copyright
>> holder.
>> The FSF can only sue if the copyright was assigned to the FSF.
>>
>> The FSF would not be enti
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:15:15 +
"Edward Ned Harvey (blu)" wrote:
> In my opinion, the answer to this question is No:
> Unless the copyright holder assigns the FSF the right to sue on
> behalf of them,
No third party has the right or privilege to pursue copyright
litigation. Cf. the outcome of
> From: Mark Woodward [mailto:ma...@mohawksoft.com]
>
> What gives you the
> moral or ethical right to create a non-free product with that free
> software you got for free?
What gives me the right to use a free product, such as vi or emacs, to write
non-free software?
The answer is of course,
> From: John Abreau [mailto:abre...@gmail.com]
>
> Another silly claim. The FSF cannot sue Joe on behalf of the copyright holder.
> The FSF can only sue if the copyright was assigned to the FSF.
>
> The FSF would not be entitled to sue Joe Schmoe unless Joe Schmoe violated
> the license on someth
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu)
wrote:
>> From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss-
>> bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
>>
>> Should the FSF feel compelled to go sue GitHub? And should they be
>> entitled to any sett
> From: Mark Woodward [mailto:ma...@mohawksoft.com]
>
> Think about what happened to Kerberos under the MIT license. You always
> ignore this point in your replies and this is a fundamental point in the
> debate.
Some people wrote some software and made it available for free. Some other
people
> From: j...@gapps.blu.org [mailto:j...@gapps.blu.org] On Behalf Of John
> Abreau
>
> You've repeatedly said that GPL is "less free".
Uhmmm Yes, but ...
> You've argued that the GPL
> "should" do things that it doesn't do,
Disagree. See below.
> > Should the FSF feel compelled to go
Another silly claim. The FSF cannot sue Joe on behalf of the copyright
holder. The FSF can only sue if the copyright was assigned to the FSF.
The FSF would not be entitled to sue Joe Schmoe unless Joe Schmoe violated
the license on something for which the FSF held the copyright.
On Thu, Jan 10,
On 01/09/2013 07:39 PM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
From: Mark Woodward [mailto:ma...@mohawksoft.com]
The freedom to deny freedom is NOT a freedom. By combining the FREE
software with NON-FREE software you can create NON-FREE software. This
does not protect FREE software.
This is not a freed
You've repeatedly said that GPL is "less free". You've argued that the GPL
"should" do things that it doesn't do, such as
> Should the FSF feel compelled to go sue GitHub?
> if you distribute laptops or servers that have a mixture of pre-installed
GPL and non-GPL binaries, that is also a violatio
On 01/09/2013 12:09 PM, Rich Pieri wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 11:57:37 -0500
Mark Woodward wrote:
That largely depends on your view of society as a whole. Totally
unrestrained "freedom" is not possible in populations greater than
1. Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr quipped "The right to swing my fists
> From: John Abreau [mailto:abre...@gmail.com]
>
> Describe a bunch of things that the GPL
> doesn't do, assert that the GPL *should* do those things,
Name anything I said that even remotely fits that description.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.
> From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss-
> bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
>
> Should the FSF feel compelled to go sue GitHub? And should they be
> entitled to any settlement they extort out of GitHub?
In my opinion, the answer to this
That's a great series of arguments. Describe a bunch of things that the GPL
doesn't do, assert that the GPL *should* do those things, and use that
assertion to support an argument that GPL is "less free".
This latest rant is decidedly less interesting than the recent Gnome 3
rant.
On Wed, Jan 9
> Media boundaries, as well as file boundaries, are meaningless. In fact, they
> are one and the same.
Gawd, I can't believe there's still MORE to say about this. Beating a dead
horse, about the total complete insignificance of file and media boundaries.
Now how about if I store something in A
I'm going to download some GPL source code, and compile it into a binary. This
is just a serial sequence of bytes. I'm going to take that sequence of bytes,
and store it as a data structure inside my non-GPL binary, and distribute the
non-GPL binary. Clearly, I'm in violation of the terms of
Should the FSF feel compelled to go sue GitHub? And should they be entitled to
any settlement they extort out of GitHub?
GitHub sells a virtual appliance, which is a single executable binary file,
compiled from a bunch of GPL based software including the Linux kernel and git,
and also includes
Two developers can define an interface between their programs. If they are
using C++, they might both be writing separate classes, which will get compiled
into the same file. They could also be writing separate classes which will be
compiled into separate files, but still interact with each ot
> From: Derek Martin [mailto:inva...@pizzashack.org]
>
> The job of a software
> license is to protect the rights of the copyright holder while
> granting privileges to their business associates.
Copyright is exactly as the name suggests - the right to copy. Why do we have
such a thing as cop
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 01:01:19 +
"Edward Ned Harvey (blu)" wrote:
> Release your code under GPL, and MIT, and CDDL. "Any recipient of
> this software may choose any of the following licenses. Don't see a
> license you want? Write to us at ___ and we'll consider releasing it
> under that lice
You know - There's something that I've never seen anybody do, and I would
rather like to see.
Release your code under GPL, and MIT, and CDDL. "Any recipient of this
software may choose any of the following licenses. Don't see a license you
want? Write to us at ___ and we'll consider releasin
> From: Mark Woodward [mailto:ma...@mohawksoft.com]
>
> The freedom to deny freedom is NOT a freedom. By combining the FREE
> software with NON-FREE software you can create NON-FREE software. This
> does not protect FREE software.
This is not a freedom of denying freedom. It does not deny any fr
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:29:40AM -0500, Mark Woodward wrote:
> >>It strikes me as absurd to claim that a system that fails to protect
> >>freedom is somehow "more free".
There's an assumption here that is wrong. The job of a software
license is to protect the rights of the copyright holder whil
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 11:57:37 -0500
Mark Woodward wrote:
> That largely depends on your view of society as a whole. Totally
> unrestrained "freedom" is not possible in populations greater than
> 1. Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr quipped "The right to swing my fists ends
> where the other man's nose beg
On 01/09/2013 11:43 AM, Rich Pieri wrote:
Freedom is the state of being without restrictions.
That largely depends on your view of society as a whole. Totally
unrestrained "freedom" is not possible in populations greater than 1.
Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr quipped "The right to swing my fists e
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 05:21:09 -0500
John Abreau wrote:
> Under democracy, citizens are prohibited from seizing power by force
> and imposing a military dictatorship on their fellow citizens. Under
> anarchy, citizens are not so prohibited.
This nation was founded by citizens seizing power by force
On 01/09/2013 07:13 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss-
bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of John Abreau
Under democracy, citizens are prohibited from seizing power by force and
imposing a military dictatorship on their f
> From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss-
> bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of John Abreau
>
> Under democracy, citizens are prohibited from seizing power by force and
> imposing a military dictatorship on their fellow citizens. Under anarchy,
> citizens are n
Under democracy, citizens are prohibited from seizing power by force and
imposing a military dictatorship on their fellow citizens. Under anarchy,
citizens are not so prohibited.
The equivalent CDDL-type argument would be that anarchy is "more free"
because you're not prohibited from taking away e
On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 16:30:01 +
"Edward Ned Harvey (blu)" wrote:
> This means you can't build a monolithic linux kernel including zfs in
> it. But you can, if you want to, build a module which the linux
> kernel links to. That is - if it's possible to build a kernel module
> without compiling
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 02:52:31PM -0500, Mark Woodward wrote:
> If it is merely your rights, then the GPL does not get in your way.
Neither does any other OSS license.
> The GPL protects the rights of people that you would otherwise deny
> the rights by which you originally acquired the software
On 01/07/2013 02:19 PM, Derek Martin wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 10:36:36AM -0500, Mark Woodward wrote:
On 01/07/2013 10:15 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
Let's get this clear, it is not "less restrictive" in the long term
view.
Yes it is, but it depends on your perspective, i.e. whose r
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 10:36:36AM -0500, Mark Woodward wrote:
> On 01/07/2013 10:15 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
> Let's get this clear, it is not "less restrictive" in the long term
> view.
Yes it is, but it depends on your perspective, i.e. whose rights
you're worried about being limited
42 matches
Mail list logo
