On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Angelo Schneider wrote:
This is exactly one of the mistake Troll Tech made with their first license.
Question (but see below also):
Why was/is that a mistake?
At
first glance, it seemed quite sensible to me: Free for Free Software,
proprietary for proprietary
Finally, why should we trivialize the kernel of any OS as an "only
thing"? If kernels were so easy, one would think that GNU would
have long ago released one. But in my experience kernels are not
so easy,
I do not think the kernel is easy; I didn't intend to say so, and I'm
Ok,
now we come to a point, please read below.
Angelo
Arandir wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Angelo Schneider wrote:
If people have to pay per copy, then the program is not free software,
and it is also not open source software.
I do not get that.
a) One uses my software to
Hi,
I commented below.
Bernard Lang wrote:
Cf. your ptoposal below ...
why not ... seems fair ... except it does not work
- how do you hendle sharing revenues between contributors ?
By granting them shares.
- how do you share responsibility for the software you are now selling ?
On Sun, Oct 24, 1999 at 01:55:54PM +0100, Angelo Schneider wrote:
Hi,
I commented below.
Bernard Lang wrote:
Cf. your ptoposal below ...
why not ... seems fair ... except it does not work
- how do you hendle sharing revenues between contributors ?
By granting them shares.
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Angelo Schneider wrote:
If people have to pay per copy, then the program is not free software,
and it is also not open source software.
I do not get that.
a) One uses my software to gain profit:
he has to share his profit with me
b) One uses my source
Cf. your ptoposal below ...
why not ... seems fair ... except it does not work
- how do you hendle sharing revenues between contributors ?
- how do you share responsibility for the software you are now selling ?
- it introcuces viscosity in the sytems,... more things to bother with
and
AS far as I know, but that my be wrong:
The seperation came first,
then came the war,
and while the war seemd to get expensive and would last longer than
the north expected, Lincoln finaly mobilized the masses because of
"slavery".
The whole country was in a ferment about
If people have to pay per copy, then the program is not free software,
and it is also not open source software.
I do not get that.
That is part of the definition of free software: users must be allowed
to run it without having to pay for permission. That includes all
users,
I'm shure that history is mainly determined by economics.
Even if the economics behind it are often not obvious.
I'd say there are a lot of other factors. This is a point where many
sociologists differ. Some will tell you economy is the most important
reason while others will tell
Richard Stallman wrote:
Sorry, Richard, thats wrong. The war is called seccesion war.
I though you where an american and you knew that, are you not?
I am an American, and I have read extensively about the Civil War. It
was caused by the dispute over slavery, not by economic
If people have to pay per copy, then the program is not free software,
and it is also not open source software.
I do not get that.
a) One uses my software to gain profit:
he has to share his profit with me
b) One uses my source to derive work:
he has to chare his work with
Quoting Tom Hull:
Did GNU define a kernel API? Was Linux written to conform to that
API?
YES.
I found out by reading W. Richard Stevens' books that RMS was
on the POSIX committee. He even chose the name POSIX.
--
((lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x)))
(quote
Quoting Alejandro Forero Cuervo:
And I also recall some old note from Linus Torvalds announcing Linux all
happy since Bash (I think it was Bash) compiled and ran on it. I could
not find it.
I actually think Linux was written to work with GNU software. Many of
the GNU utilities existed
I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of software
developers believe that the software that they write is "theirs",
no matter who uses it.
You are probably right. And the vast majority develop proprietary
software. I developed the GPL because I disagree with the majority.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
For example the US Civil war was not fought
over abolishing slavery, it was fought over whether states had the
right to leave the Union. Yet after years of fighting Lincoln proclaimed
that under Union law, all slaves in the Confederacy were free. This was
a
The X Windows system is not a GNU program; the GNU Project
cannot claim any of the credit for developing X.
However, we decided back in the 1980s to include X in the GNU
operating system, and we began integrating the rest of the system with
it. So the GNU operating system includes X, even
Finally, why should we trivialize the kernel of any OS as an "only
thing"?
When I say that Linux is only the kernel, I am not trying to minimize
the work of writing of a kernel. I am comparing it with something of
a greater order of complexity--a whole operating system. The kernel
is
On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Tom Hull wrote:
Finally, why should we trivialize the kernel of any OS as an "only
thing"? If kernels were so easy, one would think that GNU would
have long ago released one. But in my experience kernels are not
so easy, which is precisely why I think that anyone who
Windows98 and says "I'm not using Windows98, THAT's the kernel, I'm using
the 'Program Manager OS'" (since that's REALLY what they're using if your
argument is taken to its logical conclusions).
If your argument is taken to its logical conclusion, I'm using the bash
OS.. even on the IRIX
I think your analogy is precise and accurate. It also
demonstrates an irreparable flaw in your position about individual
freedom.
It isn't a flaw, it just shows that we're evaluating freedom in two
different ways and not understanding each other. I was hoping the
analogy would
The goal
of the OSS movement is to convince people and companies that by
definition a proprietary system cannot long-term deliver the same
real benefits that OSS can. If someone is well and truly convinced
of that, then they cannot be sold a proprietary system, no matter
Justin Wells wrote:
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
Hi,
please RMS, if you quote me and you draw conclusions, please
quote everything, than its easyer to correlate what I said and ment
in relation what you quoted.
Propably, (you remember 'free' verus 'for free/free beer') you are
not aware that many people on that lists are not native english
Richard Stallman wrote:
which is rare in the OSS movement. In my experience, people who
firmly reject non-free software do so at least partly based on the
moral disapproval which is the basis of the Free Software movement.
That is a strange experiance. Why should anybody have moral
Independent Observation: It's really sad when a German has to give an
American a lesson in American History. (.de is Germany right? I think so
but am too lazy to look it up *g*)
Angelo, you have it down 100% as to the causes and such of the Civil War
(known in many places in the south as the
...Not that this has much to do with GNU license for hardware.
Forrest
On Sun, 17 Oct 1999, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:
I believe the reasons why Richard wants us to call the system GNU/Linux is
so newcomers learn about the real reasons why the system is so important:
The freedom.
If this is the case, then the logical solution is to name it "Free Linux".
From: Arandir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If this is the case, then the logical solution is to name it "Free Linux".
That's the worst of both worlds. Free Linux like Free Beer, eh? Or call it
Open Linux, except that that doesn't mean what we want to say either.
We're going around in circles. Give it
On Sun, 17 Oct 1999, Richard Stallman wrote:
For those of us who care about these freedoms as freedoms,
to be denied them is domination.
I rarely respond the Richard Stallman, because even though I disagree with him
on certain philosophical issues, I still greatly respect him. However, this
I like the acronym expansion of GNU/Linux:
GNU's Not Unix/Linux
But wait, don't forget what Linux stands for:
Linux Is Not UniX.
So now we've got two things that are not Unix?
Heh. ;)
Alejo.
http://bachue.com/alejo
--
The mere formulation of a problem is far more
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 not
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.
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
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.
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
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 a
Derek J. Balling scripsit:
You seem to think that you have
the right to demand that they change the name of their product to include
"GNU", simply because they are using some code you told them they could
use.
"What RMS wants" != "what RMS thinks he has the right to demand".
I hear RMS
At 11:18 AM 10/14/99 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
"What RMS wants" != "what RMS thinks he has the right to demand".
I hear RMS urging people to use the name GNU/Linux, not demanding that
they do so, still less claiming that he has a right to demand that they
do so.
I have seen him personally with my
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Derek Balling wrote:
Say what? The SunOS kernel isn't free. Why would RMS urge its use?
We're not talking about urging its use, we're simply talking about "what
would you CALL a hybrid of the SunOS kernel using entirely GNU
applications". For RMS's contentions
At 12:46 PM 10/14/99 -0400, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
Yeah -- the SunOS kernel isn't free, so why should it be considered a GNU
system? ...Whereas Linux (the kernel) *is* free, and is considered part of
the GNU system. I don't think it should always be called GNU/Linux, in the
case of, say,
At 01:26 PM 10/14/99 -0400, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
I actually agree; I was attempting to clarify what seems to continue to be
unclear below.
Fine.
It is the GNU system running Solaris kernel, just as RMS's claim that
it is
the GNU system running the Linux kernel. We're not talking
CC: Good grief.
CC list trimmed to lists, ppc-mobo and pleb omitted per announced
policy.
"rms" == Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The rest is apps
(many of that being programs that do a job that no free software does
satisfactorily yet, and even accepted as a necessary
The rest is apps
(many of that being programs that do a job that no free software does
satisfactorily yet, and even accepted as a necessary evil by FSF.
The truth is more complex than that. We don't accept non-free
apps as a necessary evil, but we do accept that many GNU users
(List of recipients trimmed.)
Richard Stallman wrote:
RMS has said that he considers OSI and FSF to be like "two political parties
within our community". Perhaps he has something like the Clinton Republicans
and the Dole Democrats in mind, but it plays more like the two sides of
G'day all.
On Thu, Oct 14, 1999 at 12:46:16PM -0400, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
Whereas Linux (the kernel) *is* free, and is considered part of
the GNU system.
I like the acronym expansion of GNU/Linux:
GNU's Not Unix/Linux
Since Linux is in fact a re-implementation of Unix, it's
Remember what Billy Shakespeare said about roses...
When you communicate using words, the words you choose determine
what message you convey.
People can find out about roses by looking at them, smelling them, and
pricking themselves with thorns. But a social activity such as the
Free
Nope. Unices have always been named after their kernel.
With all due respect, there are almost no examples of naming a system
after its kernel. It is normally the opposite: the kernel is named
after the system it was used in. Names such as SunOS, AIX, HPUX, and
Unix itself, are first of
At 03:43 PM 10/13/99 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
If I was to replace all of Solaris's utilities with the GNU
equivalents, would anybody call it GNU/Solaris?
I for one would not call it that. Copying just the utilities from GNU
is not enough of a reason to say "the result is
On Mon, Oct 11, 1999 at 02:33:32PM -0700, Derek J. Balling wrote:
I have to disagree. I agree with many of Richard's concepts, (although I
still don't call it GNU/Linux *G*) but for hardware I have to seriously
disagree.
"Free", in today's society, when attached to hardware, will have
Before we REALLY go off topic can people edit the cc list in the
future before posting. I don't mind (and I hope the rest of the list
doesn't) having licencing descusions on the PLEB list (even if I'm getting
it 3 times from the cc'ing) but lets keep it on that track or move it to a
On Tue, Oct 12, 1999 at 01:35:12AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
Kristofer Coward writes:
I have to disagree. I agree with many of Richard's concepts, (although I
still don't call it GNU/Linux *G*) but for hardware I have to seriously
disagree.
There are already systems
On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Sven LUTHER wrote:
Notice, that in all the examples you mention, both the kernel and the OS were
manufactured by the same guys. Solaris kernel and solaris OS come both from
sun, freeBSD kernel and the BSD utils on top of it come from the same group
and have the same
From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:35:12 -0400 (EDT)
Marketing is an all-important skill for a free software business. It
seems not to be necessary in order to run a successful foundation.
Ouch! Is this bare-knouckle fighting day?
Brian
== The
Brian J. Fox writes:
From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:35:12 -0400 (EDT)
Marketing is an all-important skill for a free software business. It
seems not to be necessary in order to run a successful foundation.
Ouch! Is this bare-knouckle
Sign! I hate to contiue this "SPAM" but I would like to agree and
disagree with Richard. Free_ is not the right word due to the dumb
conotations people have in the US or English speaking world.
I think Richard is right that it should reflect the Freedom of ___ but we
should choose a new
As co-instigator of "Open Source" and the person who originaly announced
it to the net and wrote most of the Open Source definition, I definitely
... and some other peoples :-)
have mixed feelings on the subject. In my mind, "Open Source" was meant
to be a gentle introduction to free
On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Richard Stallman wrote:
If you are inspired by the GNU Project and the Free Software movement,
I hope you will choose a name that refers to freedom. The word "open"
calls to mind the Open Source movement, which differs from the Free
One of RMS's more dubious accomplishments is that people all over the world
are agonizing that "free" as in "free software" doesn't have anything to do
with price. Moreover, they soured to the point where they're even disparaging
happy hour (a/k/a "free beer").
The fact is that free
On Mon, Oct 11, 1999 at 03:39:21PM -0700, Reto Stamm wrote:
Derek J. Balling wrote:
I have to disagree. I agree with many of Richard's concepts, (although I
still don't call it GNU/Linux *G*) but for hardware I have to seriously
disagree.
"Free", in today's society, when attached to
I'm not sure if its the back log of our mail server or the time
difference or what but I've asked once before and it seems I have to ask
again (and add more SPAM in the process). Please move the discussion back
on TOPIC (ie licencing, or hardware design) or remove the PLEB mail alias
(not
O.K., this has gone far enough.
I've lowered a parameter on The OpenPPC Project's mailing list software:
It will hold for moderation any post sent to more than n recpients. And
no, I'm not gonna tell you what n is. :-P
Licensing topics that will make it through:
* Open hardware licenses
*
the very first requirement set forth in the OSD insists on free
(no royalty or fee) redistribution for "open source" software.
No it doesn't. This is a very common misunderstanding. An Open Source
license must *allow* free redistribution (i.e., must not *require* payment),
but it need not
On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Kristofer Coward wrote:
True, but the only non-free software living at a low enough level to be
considered part of the OS (that I can think of) is qt (which a lot of open
source folk don't consider a threat to the movement).
Okay, Qt licensing is still on-topic, so here
Richard Stallman wrote:
If you are inspired by the GNU Project and the Free Software movement,
I hope you will choose a name that refers to freedom. The word "open"
calls to mind the Open Source movement, which differs from the Free
Software movement in rejecting all talk of freedom,
Derek J. Balling wrote:
I have to disagree. I agree with many of Richard's concepts, (although I
still don't call it GNU/Linux *G*) but for hardware I have to seriously
disagree.
"Free", in today's society, when attached to hardware, will have lots of
confusion when it comes to things like
The attached Licnese is the OpenIP Hardware public license. The license
covers OpenHardware designes a la GPL.
...
OpenIP General Hardware Public License
Draft Version 0.15-111099 October 1999
Copyright (C) 1999 OpenIP Organization.
Everyone is permitted to copy
I have to disagree. I agree with many of Richard's concepts, (although I
still don't call it GNU/Linux *G*) but for hardware I have to seriously
disagree.
There are already systems (Amiga, iirc) which use the Linux kernel outside
the GNU system.. in proprietary systems even. Regrettably,
On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Richard Stallman wrote:
If you are inspired by the GNU Project and the Free Software movement,
I hope you will choose a name that refers to freedom. The word "open"
calls to mind the Open Source movement, which differs from the Free
Software movement in rejecting all
69 matches
Mail list logo
