On Friday 14 June 2002 09:41 pm, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> David Johnson wrote in part, in a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Here is the FSF's definition, which is remarkably similar to your own.
> >
> > *) The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
> > *) The freedom to study how
Zlib and libbz2 would compress better, but the CPU price is too heavy.
The "problem" is that the backup pipe consumes about 10Mbytes/sec.
LZO is optimzed for speed, and my tests indicate that it (LZO) is
just able to deliver compressed data at that speed on our servers.
Rasmus Møller
>On Wednes
David Johnson wrote in part, in a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Here is the FSF's definition, which is remarkably similar to your own.
>
> *) 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 redist
Hello all,
I am putting finishing touches to an academic article on the legal implications of the
GPL and Open source licenses. This is an introductory type article with transcript of
a seminar held at Santa Clara Uni in 2001. It is for a legal magazine in Australia
and Asia. It is in some
Andy Tai writes:
> "Free software" means a well defined set of software.
> Whatever you define is not relevant, if it is not
> compatible with the well accepted meanings of the
> community.
But it is. Go to any free software developer and ask her if she
thinks I've defined free software. A
On Friday 14 June 2002 03:14 pm, Andy Tai wrote:
> "Free software" means a well defined set of software.
"Free Software" refers to complex concept. As such, no single one or two
syllable adjective, in any language, is sufficient to define it. But humans,
being what they are, will conceptualize
On Friday 14 June 2002 01:48 pm, John Cowan wrote:
> Russell Nelson scripsit:
> > Here's what I call free software:
> > If you can get the source code, AND
> > If you can make any changes you want to the source, AND
>
> Not even the MIT or new-BSD licenses allow that: some parts of
> the sourc
On Friday 14 June 2002 01:40 pm, Russell Nelson wrote:
> You are presuming two things:
> 1) that a lack of acceptance is the same thing as rejection, and
That's how I've always understood it. RMS can't tell whether the original
Artisitic License is free or not so he is reserving judgement. To
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Rod Dixon wrote:
> Begun, this free software war has!;-)
Wars not make one great.
Brian
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
"Free software" means a well defined set of software.
Whatever you define is not relevant, if it is not
compatible with the well accepted meanings of the
community. Software libre, software livre, Tzi4-Yu2
Ran3-Ti3, etc., all are names for the same thing in
different languages of the world. The
Begun, this free software war has!;-)
rod
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
> John Cowan writes:
> > The above program is not free software: see
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense .
>
> You are presuming two things:
> 1) that a lack of acceptance is
Russell Nelson scripsit:
> Here's what I call free software:
> If you can get the source code, AND
> If you can make any changes you want to the source, AND
Not even the MIT or new-BSD licenses allow that: some parts of
the source have to remain invariant.
> If you can create binaries, AN
John Cowan writes:
> The above program is not free software: see
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense .
You are presuming two things:
1) that a lack of acceptance is the same thing as rejection, and
2) that RMS defines "free software". The term was in wide use
Russell Nelson scripsit:
> All software which is OSI Certified Open Source (that is, licensed
> under an approved license) is free software.
Disproof:
# /usr/bin/perl
# This program is licensed under the Artistic License.
# See http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php for terms
p
Ned Lilly writes:
> Does that square with a) the GPL, and/or b) the OSI definition?
Yes and yes. The GPL requires that you distribute source with
binaries (exception: you can defer this distribution for up to three
years, and wait for it to be requested). It doesn't say that you have
to distr
Rodrigo Barbosa writes:
> Also, as you can see (if you take the time to read the infos on the site),
> not all Open Source licenses are free software licenses.
All software which is OSI Certified Open Source (that is, licensed
under an approved license) is free software.
--
-russ nelson
16 matches
Mail list logo
