On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 09:33:11PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> If Open Source is going to be used extensively by commercial
> concerns, then the needs of the consumer must be taken into
> account.
You are confusing needs with preferences.
Assuming that the user would maximize freedom given th
On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 09:33:11PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > It makes sense that the end-user in general would prefer a "do anything
> > you want" license. The important point is that the _author_ often
> > doesn't prefer this license ...
>
> If
>What suddenly struck me is that a GNU System with its own kernel, although it
>exists today, did not exist when the original Linux distributions were
>created.
>As I recall, back then GNU did not exist as a system in any form. It was a
>future goal, but then it was only a collection of programs
At 10:14 PM 10/15/99 -0700, David Johnson wrote:
>Actually, this brings up a parallel to software development that is somewhat
>canny. Homebrewing!
Screw it, let's get drunk and stop bickering. ;-)
D
On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Derek J. Balling wrote:
> At 02:59 PM 10/15/99 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >Actually I do not say that Linux is part of the GNU system. What I
> >say is that the GNU/Linux system is the combination of GNU and Linux.
> >It is the result of integrating Linux into the GNU s
On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Derek J. Balling wrote:
> I think you should make time, as this is a very important question.
> Certainly, you must feel cheated if you buy non-free food, don't you
> Richard? I mean, if that Frozen Chicken Enchilada isn't JUST the way you
> like it, you have no ability to
On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:
> It makes sense that the end-user in general would prefer a "do anything
> you want" license. The important point is that the _author_ often
> doesn't prefer this license, and since one of the most sensitive areas
> of Open Source is providing the author
Bruce Perens wrote:
> Regarding the sending back of modifications, please read the APSL, IBM Public
> Source license, or the ATT license and use their text. The APSL is at
> http://publicsource.apple.com/ , I think.
Both the APSL and the IBM Jikes license require the modifications to be
release
On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 02:38:45PM -0700, Derek J. Balling wrote:
> >But I don't have time to go off on that large tangent now.
>
> I think you should make time, as this is a very important question.
> Certainly, you must feel cheated if you buy non-free food, don't you
> Richard? I mean, if
[cc's trimmed]
At 08:44 PM 10/15/99 -0400, Justin Wells wrote:
>I think you can answer all your questions yourself. What you really
>want to do at this point is compare Stallman to Hitler. That's the old
>USENET secret code to let everyone know that rationality has left
>the discussion, which wou
From: Alex Nicolaou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> While I agree that this needs to be added to my license, I'm not sure
> why modified binary versions really need to be distributed in general.
Debian policy, for example, is to rebuild everything:
1. To match the dynamic libraries they distribut
Bruce Perens wrote:
>
> From: Alex Nicolaou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > You may not distribute versions of the software with your patch applied,
> > although you may include your patches in a subdirectory of the software
> > specifically provided for this purpose, or provide the software in an
> > ar
On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 02:38:45PM -0700, Derek J. Balling wrote:
> At 03:01 PM 10/15/99 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >Peter Deutsch wrote:
> >
> > I have yet to hear a persuasive explanation of why Free
> > Software advocates think it's OK for authors of fiction to be paid
> > for
Richard Stallman wrote:
> > If you think that both are important, your place is in the
> > Free Software movement.
>
> No. If you think that both are important AND that the methodology
> put forward by the Open Source movement is not currently the right
> strategy, then you b
At 03:01 PM 10/15/99 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
>Peter Deutsch wrote:
>
> I have yet to hear a persuasive explanation of why Free
> Software advocates think it's OK for authors of fiction to be paid
> for each
> copy of their work, but not programmers. If the distinction is bet
At 03:01 PM 10/15/99 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
>That is true. At the same time, the Free Software movement
>can instill a stronger, firmer, more persistent kind of support,
>because we appeal to the kind of values which can generate such
>support.
>
>Thus, each approach can do something that
At 02:59 PM 10/15/99 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
>Actually I do not say that Linux is part of the GNU system. What I
>say is that the GNU/Linux system is the combination of GNU and Linux.
>It is the result of integrating Linux into the GNU system, but it
>isn't precisely the GNU system. It is
You're being a little extreme here. I don't think the FSF ever said that
non-free programming was illegitimate.
The FSF's goal is a world in which published software is generally
free. The FSF doesn't quite go so far as to say that non-free
software is morally wrong. I personally thin
It forces you to release all your stuff which is in someway combined
with the GNU stuff as GPL, too.
Most people prefer 'free' software where the author states: "you can do
what
ever you want provided you leave this notice intact".
...
In fact I prefer a community so
But they differ on methodology, and the Open
Source movement can appeal to people that the Free Software
movement does not.
That is true. At the same time, the Free Software movement
can instill a stronger, firmer, more persistent kind of support,
because we appeal to the kind of v
This is false. Or have you changed your mind about about accepting
code to support ssh in Emacs?
You are right that we don't support any and all non-free applications
in all ways. We only support some of them, in some ways.
Then what is the benefit to anyone of me foregoing my OCR?
I can tell you the benefit for which I would forego the use of such a
program. I do not want to be in the position of having a program and
not being allowed to share it with you. I would rather have no
program for the job, than have
Balling has attributed to me
The only people (or to clarify, the FIRST person) who claimed Linux was
"part of the GNU system" was RMS.
Actually I do not say that Linux is part of the GNU system. What I
say is that the GNU/Linux system is the combination of GNU and Linux.
It is the resu
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens)
> I think you should require that they be marked clearly as modificatied
> versions, but you need to allow them to be distributed.
Change "modificatied versions" to modifications. Sometimes I type too fast.
Thanks
Bruce
From: Alex Nicolaou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You may not distribute versions of the software with your patch applied,
> although you may include your patches in a subdirectory of the software
> specifically provided for this purpose, or provide the software in an
> archive format designed to accomoda
I recently decided I wanted to release a project of mine as open source,
so I set out to find a license that suited me. In the grand tradition of
computer programmers everywhere, I found none that would do and decided
to write my own.
I'm soliciting feedback of all kinds, but kindly keep your com
L. Peter Deutsch wrote:
>
> > God knows I don't want to get too far into this brawl, but it's at least
> > worth pointing out that this, like the statements it intends to refute, is
> > just hand-waving. It's an assertion every bit as unfounded as the ones to
> > which it is a response. I don't
On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 08:09:00AM -0700, L. Peter Deutsch wrote:
> IMO, what made the difference was enforceable "intellectual property"
> rights, which are a relatively new concept historically. Are you suggesting
> that the concept of "intellectual property" is (or should be) a brief detour
On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 06:34:22AM -0700, L. Peter Deutsch wrote:
> >> Also, hardly any programmers have any right to receive royalties derived
> >> from the works they create. It's very rare. The vast majority of programmers
> >> exchange a programming service for a regular paycheque, and grant
> God knows I don't want to get too far into this brawl, but it's at least
> worth pointing out that this, like the statements it intends to refute, is
> just hand-waving. It's an assertion every bit as unfounded as the ones to
> which it is a response. I don't say it's false, just that it's a l
Richard Stallman scripsit:
> We're the
> principal (though not the sole) developers of the system,
This is a question of fact. What is the evidence for it?
> If he urges one the use of GNU/Linux, but won't urge the use of (the
> theoretical) GNU/Solaris, even though the products are f
On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, L. Peter Deutsch wrote:
> And I stand by my previous statement that in the presence of
> effective competition, [Red Hat] won't have the surplus income that
> will allow them to fund development. Free software development
> will have to continue to be subsidized by the reven
> I cannot disagree more strongly. Free software decreases the marginal
> cost of additional software. I think that everyone is agreed on that.
> However once that marginal cost is reduced, the overall demand goes up.
That is the "general economic handwave" to which I referred. You are making
I've deleted geda-dev, ppc-mobo, and f-cpu from the distribution list, since
they consider this discussion off-topic.
> In fact, this is more or less how authors and musicians made their living
> for most of recorded history. It's only been relatively recently, since
> the industrial revolution,
A caveat with taking freshmeat license counts
Freshmeat.net doesn't list everything.
Freshmeat does not list older applications
and utilities, such as common system utilities
or library functions. Even with just what is
distributed with OpenBSD or FreeBSD, this is
thousands of items.
But
L. Peter Deutsch wrote:
> > More than that. Something like 90% of programmers are working on software
> > for internal company use only. How is free software going to take away
> > these jobs?
>
> By reducing the amount of effort required to work around the problems of the
> black-box environme
> From: Kristofer Coward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Books are more difficult to copy.
Well, for about 6 more months.
I asked someone in the GNU organization this question once,
years ago. He said that he didn't think that books or records
or other IP values were or should be significantly differen
At 05:02 AM 10/15/99 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
>The GNU GPL does not make any legal requirements about what name you
>can call your system if you include a GNU program in it. I think it
>would be wrong to try to impose such a requirement by legal force.
It is good that you recognize such.
At 05:01 AM 10/15/99 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
>Derek Balling has made accusations against me here that call for
>refutation.
Indeed.
>Calling this version of the GNU system "Linux", and not mentioning the
>name GNU, is treating the GNU Project with disrespect. We're the
>principal (though
>> Also, hardly any programmers have any right to receive royalties derived
>> from the works they create. It's very rare. The vast majority of programmers
>> exchange a programming service for a regular paycheque, and grant all rights
>> to their work to the company that pays them.
This doesn't
(Mailing list trimmed.)
> On Thu, Oct 14, 1999 at 01:30:05PM -0700, L. Peter Deutsch wrote:
>
> > That's the issue in a nutshell. The Free Software movement verges on taking
> > the position that the only legitimate way for programmers to make money is
> > to provide services.
>
> You're being
The GNU GPL does not make any legal requirements about what name you
can call your system if you include a GNU program in it. I think it
would be wrong to try to impose such a requirement by legal force.
Besides which, individual GNU programs have often been included in
other systems, such as GC
Derek Balling has made accusations against me here that call for
refutation.
I have seen him personally with my own eyes demand it of people. I saw him
rip into a member of the press for being "ignorant" when he referred to
Linux as Linux.
Calling this version of the GNU system "Li
Hi, that's right but I use it to describe the mix of different
things, hardware & software found on 'openip.org'. It's not
related to any legal assumption
"Intellectual property" is a legal term, and nothing but.
Its meaning is a broad category which includes copyrights, patents,
trad
> "Bruce" == Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bruce> It makes sense that the end-user in general would prefer a
Bruce> "do anything you want" license.
Well, no. At least, not if you mean that's more plausible than its
negation. It is true that downstream developers will pre
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Kristofer Coward wrote:
> Even though you cannot copy the book, you can still teach its
> content to other people. You can't do that with propritary
> software, whose utility lies in the ability to install and use
> a copy of it on your computer.
Nonsense. There's an indust
46 matches
Mail list logo
